Shu Shih-Tung (EMShip Thesis Feb 2013) A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies PDF

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine
Scrubber Technologies
Shih-Tung Shu
Master Thesis
presented in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the double degree:
“Advanced Master in Naval Architecture” conferred by University of Liege
"Master of Sciences in Applied Mechanics, specialization in Hydrodynamics,
Energetic and Propulsion” conferred by Ecole Centrale de Nantes
developed at University of Rostock, Rostock

in the framework of the
“EMSHIP”
Erasmus Mundus Master Course
in “Integrated Advanced Ship Design”
Ref. 159652-1-2009-1-BE-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC
Supervisor: Prof. Robert Bronsart, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Reviewer: Dr. Tomasz Urbanski, West Pomeranian University of

Technology, Szczecin, Poland.
Rostock, February 2013

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies i
ABSTRACT
MARPOL Annex VI regulates the emissions from all ships trading internationally. Ship
owners must take actions before the lowest limits come into force. The combined challenges
of rising oil prices and increasing regulatory stringency on shipping’s air emissions justify the
exploration of feasibilities between compliant technologies. This study focuses on the
scrubber technology for large marine engines with which ships can continue to use preferable
cheap heavy fuel oil (HFO) without exceeding the emission control limits. It draws on
existing technical and economical information about scrubber systems in the market to
establish a complete life cycle cost analysis for four vessel types: Containership, passenger
ship, Ro-Pax and tanker.
An investigation of the technology overview, cost data, emission reduction efficiency, impact
of installations, operational issues and installation case studies is conducted. Environmental
impacts such as wash water discharge, sludge disposal and end-of-life recycling are also
addressed. By choosing the marine gas oil (MGO) utilisation as the baseline, the life cycle
cost analysis is performed between different types of scrubber system, namely open loop
seawater scrubber, closed loop freshwater scrubber, hybrid scrubber and dry scrubber system.
The life cycle cost analysis results are presented by the net present value (NPV) and the return
of investment (ROI) time. Under the assumption of current HFO and MGO price, a positive
NPV can be found for every scrubber types subjected to four vessel types with the ROI time
ranging from 1to 5 years depending on the operation profile in ECA-SOx.
Keyword: Life cycle cost analysis, MARPOL Annex VI, scrubber technology, emission
control areas, exhaust gas treatment technology, SOx abatement , NOx abatement
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, period of study September 2011 – February 2013
ii Shih-Tung Shu
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES VI
LIST OF TABLES VIII
ABBREVIATIONS IX
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. OBJECTIVES 2
1.2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 3
1.2.1. MARPOL Annex VI 3
1.2.2. The United States Marine Emission Standards 5
1.3. LITERATURE REVIEWS 7
1.3.1. Abatement Technologies Related 7
1.3.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Related 10
1.3.3. Installation of Abatement Technologies Related 12
1.3.4. Other Literature Reviews 14
2. LIFE CYCLE COSTING 15
2.1. THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 16

2.2. PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES 17
2.2.1. Cost 17
2.2.2. Time 17
2.2.3. Discount Rate 17
2.2.4. LCCA Procedure 18
2.3. SCRUBBER SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION 20
3. EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OVERVIEW 21
3.1. SULFUR OXIDE (SOX) ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES 21

3.1.1. Wet Scrubbers 21
3.1.2. Dry Scrubbers 25
3.2. NITROGEN OXIDE (NOX) ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES 28
3.2.1. Primary NOx control 28
3.2.2. Secondary NOx Control 32
3.3. PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES 34
3.3.1. Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) 35
Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies iii
3.3.2. Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) 36

3.3.3. Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) 36
3.4. SUMMARY 38
4. OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES 40
4.1. WET SCRUBBER SYSTEM 40

4.1.1. Scrubber Unit 40
4.1.2. Pumping System 42
4.1.3. Piping System 42
4.1.4. Sludge Tank 43
4.1.5. NaOH Dosing and Storage System 43
4.1.6. Bleed-off and Fresh Water Topping System 44
4.2. DRY SCRUBBER SYSTEM 45
4.2.1. Scrubber Unit 45
4.2.2. Granulate Conveying System and Power Consumption 47
4.2.3. Granulate Consumption Rate 47
4.2.4. Granulate Logistic and Recycling 48
4.3. SELECTIVE CATALYST REACTION (SCR) 49
4.3.1. SCR Reactor 49
4.3.2. Catalyst Block Elements 51
4.3.3. Urea Consumption and Storage 52
4.3.4. Soot/ash Blowing System 52
4.4. TECHNOLOGIES COMPARISON 53
4.5. CASE STUDIES 56
4.5.1. MS Pride of Kent – SWS system 58
4.5.2. MS Zaandam– SWS system 59
4.5.3. MT Suula– FWS system 60
4.5.4. Ficaria Seaways – HS system 61
4.5.5. SCR System Installation 63
5. INSTALLATION IMPACTS 65
5.1. TECHNICAL IMPACTS 65

5.1.1. Space 65
5.1.2. Weight 66
iv Shih-Tung Shu
5.1.3. Operation Mode 66

5.1.4. Chemical Usage 67
5.1.5. Exhaust Gas Handling 68
5.1.6. Noise Attenuation 70
5.1.7. Crew Training 71
5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 72
5.2.1. Washwater Discharge Criteria 72
5.2.2. Sludge Disposal 72
5.2.3. Scrubber End-of-life 73
6. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS 75
6.1. BASELINE SCENARIO 76

6.2. LCCA FRAMEWORK 77
6.2.1. Capital Expenditures 77
6.2.2. Operational and Maintenance Expenditures 79
6.2.3. End-of-life Expenditures 81
6.2.4. Fuel Escalation and Inflation 81
6.3. TECHNOLOGIES COMPARISON 84
6.4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 90
6.4.1. Fuel Price Sensitivity 90
6.4.2. Fuel Escalation and Inflation Rate Sensitivity 91
6.4.3. Engineering Design and Installation Sensitivity 91
6.4.4. Labour Cost Sensitivity 92
6.4.5. Worst and Best Combination Sensitivity 92
6.5. DISCUSSION 94
7. CONCLUSION 95
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 98
REFERENCES 99
APPENDIX – SCR LIFE CYCLE COSTING 102

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies v
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
I declare that this thesis and the work presented in it are my own and have been generated by
me as the result of my own original research.
Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly attributed.
Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given. With the exception
of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work.
I have acknowledged all main sources of help.
Where the thesis is based on work done by myself jointly with others, I have made clear
exactly what was done by others and what I have contributed myself.
This thesis contains no material that has been submitted previously, in whole or in part, for
the award of any other academic degree or diploma.
I cede copyright of the thesis in favour of the University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Date: 13.01.2013 Signature
vi Shih-Tung Shu
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Regulation 14 SOx limits 3

Figure 2. Regulation 13 NOx limits 5
Figure 3. Categories of LCC 15
Figure 4. Steps of LCCA 18
Figure 5. A open loop SWS system [Lloyd’s Register 2012] 23
Figure 6. A closed loop FWS system [Lloys’s Register 2012] 24
Figure 7. A HS system operating in open loop mode [Lloys’s Register 2012] 25
Figure 8. A HS system operating in closed loop mode [Lloys’s Register 2012] 25
Figure 9. A dry scrubber system [Couple System] 26
Figure 10. An EGR system [MAN Diesel & Turbo] 31
Figure 11. A SCR system [Jürgens R, 2011] 32
Figure 12. PM penetration efficiency. 34
Figure 13. An ESP system. 37
Figure 14. Weight of wet scrubber system 41
Figure 15. Volume of wet scrubber system 41
Figure 16. NaOH consumption rate [Wärtsilä 2011] 44
Figure 17. Weight of dry scrubber system 46
Figure 18. Volume of dry scrubber system 46
Figure 19. Weight of SCR system 49
Figure 20. Volume of SCR system 49
Figure 21. SCR operation temperature [Wärtsilä 2011] 50
Figure 22. Catalyst block fouling [Lloyd’s Register, 2012] 51
Figure 23. MS Pride of Kent. 58
Figure 24. MS Zaandam. 59
Figure 25. MT Suula. 60
Figure 26. Ficaria Seaways. 62
Figure 27. Total engine power of SCR installation 63
Figure 28. Number of SCR installation 63
Figure 29. Single and multi-inlet scrubber system 69
Figure 30. Abatement technology compatability 70
Figure 31. Cost information of scrubber system 77

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies vii
Figure 32. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 1 – Containership 85

Figure 33. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 2 – Passenger ship 86
Figure 34. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 3 - Ro-ro Ferry 87
Figure 35. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 4 - Tanker ship 88
Figure 36. SCR CapEx estimation 103
viii Shih-Tung Shu
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. U.S. EPA marine engine categories. 5

Table 2. Advanced IEM combinations [Ritchie A. et al., 2005] 29
Table 3. SOx, NOx and PM abatement technologies 38
Table 4. Main components of wet scrubber systems 40
Table 5. Comparison of wet and dry scrubber system components 45
Table 6. Comparison of scrubber systems 53
Table 7. List of scrubber installations 57
Table 8. Comparison of multiple separate and multi-inlet scrubber system 69
Table 9. Close loop wet scrubber sludge sampling [Kjølholt J. et al, 2012] 73
Table 10. Baseline of four vessel types 76
Table 11. Scrubber equipment cost 78
Table 12. Capital expenditures and cost items 78
Table 13. O&M expenditures and cost items 79
Table 14. Wet scrubber system parameters 82
Table 15. Dry scrubber system parameters 83
Table 16. LCCA results of vessel/route 1 - Containership 85
Table 17. LCCA results of vessel/route 2 - Passenger ship 86
Table 18. LCCA results of vessel/route 3 - Ro-Pax ship 87
Table 19. LCCA results of vessel/route 4 - Tanker ship 88
Table 20. Fuel price sensitivity 90
Table 21. Fuel escalation and inflation rate sensitivity 91
Table 22. Engineering design and installation sensitivity 92
Table 23. Labour cost sensitivity 92
Table 24. Worst and best combination sensitivity 92
Table 25. SCR cost estimation data collection 102
Table 26. SCR CapEx estimation 103
Table 27. LCC of SCR system installation 104

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies ix
ABBREVIATIONS
CapEx Capital Expenditures

DWI Direct water injection
ECA Emission control area
ECA-Nox Nitrogen Emission control area
ECA-SOx Sulphur Emission control area
EGC Exhaust gas cleaning
EGR Exhaust gas recirculation
EGT Exhaust gas treatment
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
FWS Freshwater scrubber
GRE Glass reinforced epoxy
HAM Humid air motor
HC Hydrocarbon
HERCULES Project of Higher-Efficiency Engine with Ultra-Low Emissions for
Ships
HFO Heavy fuel oil
HS Hybrid system
IEM In engine modification
IMO International Maritime Organization
LCC Life cycle cost
LCCA Life cycle cost analysis
LNG Liquidized natural gas
MARPOL The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From
Ships (MARine POLlution)
MCR Maximum continuous rating
MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
MGO Marine gas oil
MW Megawatt
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPC Net present cost
NPV Net present value
x Shih-Tung Shu
O&M Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PM Particulate matter
ROI Return of investment
S Sulphur
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SFOC Specific fuel oil consumption
SOx Sulphur oxides
SWS Seawater scrubber system
THC Total petroleum hydrocarbons
U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency of the United States
VOC Volatile organic compounds

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Air pollution can cause discomfort, diseases, health damage and even death to humans.
Regulations and emission controls are currently one of the most important issues worldwide.
In response to growing concerns about air quality, pollutions and its environmental
consequences from the seaborne traffics, initiatives, measurements and regulations are
introduced through International Maritime Organization (IMO). Reduction of air emissions
with respect to sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter is addressed and
regulated through MARPOL amendment protocol in 1997.
MARPOL Annex VI regulates the emissions from all ships trading internationally. Ship
owners must take actions before the lowest limits come into force. There are several
alternatives available in the market, namely marine gas oil (MGO), liquidised natural gas
(LNG), shore-side electricity, fuel switching, exhaust gas treatment (EGT) technologies et
cetera. Each of the technologies will have various technical and economical impacts on ships
as well as the shipping industry and investments will be required in any case. The combined
challenges of rising oil prices and increasing regulatory stringency on shipping’s air emissions
justify the exploration of feasibilities between technologies.
Using low sulphur content fuel instead of heavy fuel oil (HFO) is the simple quick solution
with regard to the limit for sulphur content in marine fuel. However, due the production
complexity and availability of low sulphur fuel, there is a clear risk that low sulphur fuel will
not be the solution for all ships when the global sulphur cap comes by year 2020.
Scrubber system is one of the exhaust gas treatment (EGT) technologies, with which ships
can continue to use preferable cheap HFO without exceeding SOx emission control limits,
draws attentions among the shipping industry. Scrubber system has been a proven technology
for land-based applications, but there are still concerns about the maturity of marine scrubber
technology and seaborne application with limited space onboard and the challenge of different
engine load.
In order to make a good decision with regard to the long term investment, it is essential to
understand sufficient detail of environmental impact, technical feasibilities and life cycle cost

2 Shih-Tung Shu
of scrubber system installations. Most of the literature reviews focus on the capital
expenditure, while the impacts of operational cost and end of life disposal are either ignored
or roughly estimated. To explore further, the study aims at the cost data from literature studies
and information from scrubber vendors and an assessment study for decision making is
provided to establish a complete life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for four vessel types:
Containership, passenger ship, Ro-Pax and tanker. .
1.1. Objectives
The specific objectives of the study and assessments of scrubber installation are presented as
followed:
1. Introduce the terminology of life cycle cost analysis with clear principles and steps.
2. Provide an introduction of MARPOL Annex VI compliance alternative technologies and
an overview of exhaust gas treatment (EGT) technologies.
3. Assess the possible technical and environmental impacts of scrubber system installation.
4. Quantify the weight loss of a scrubber installation.
5. Present case studies of the scrubber installations.
6. Assess the possible economical impacts by LCCA with a return of investment (ROI)
comparison between different scrubber systems and sensitivity analyses which give
previews of future uncertainties.

1.2. Legislative Framework
1.2.1. MARPOL Annex VI
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL
for Marine Pollution, was adopted by International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1973.
The MARPOL Convention addresses pollution from ships by oil; by noxious liquid
substances carried in bulk; harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form; sewage,
garbage; and the prevention of air pollution from ships, which has greatly contributed to a
significant decrease in pollution from international shipping. Annex VI was added to regulate
the air emissions through MARPOL amendment protocol in 1997, which entered into force in
2005 and significant amendments were made in 2008.
SOx emission control

SOx Emission Control Areas (ECAs-SOx) are introduced to further limit the air emission in
certain areas. Currently there are four approved ECAs-SOx regions including the Baltic Sea,
the North Sea, the North American ECA-SOx – 200 nautical miles offshore U.S.A. and
Canada, including Hawaii, St. Lawrence Waterway and the Great Lakes (as from 1st August
2012) and the United States Caribbean Sea ECA-SOx (as from 1st January 2014).
Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI puts the limits on the sulphur content of fuel to restrict
SOx and particulate matter emissions. It is valid for all the ships in service worldwide inside
and outside ECAs for specified limit, which is a stepped reduction over time, as shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Regulation 14 SOx limits
4 Shih-Tung Shu
Currently inside ECAs-SOx, only fuels with 1.50% sulphur content can be used, while as
from 1st January 2015, MARPOL Annex VI will require that the maximum sulphur content in
fuels used by ships inside ECAs-SOx to be of 0.10% by weight. Outside ECAs-SOx, a
maximum sulphur content of 3.50% fuels can be used now and will be lowered to 0.50% by
weight either on 1st January 2020 or 1st January 2025 based on a final decision in 2018 to be
taken by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) depending on the
outcome of as review of fuel oil availability.
Regulation 4 allows alternative technologies to be used, like SOx scrubber systems to ensure
a similar limitation of SOx emissions while using a fuel with sulphur content higher than that
allowed by Regulation14 as equivalent means of compliance. Flag administrations have to
approve the use of scrubber systems as compliant in accordance with the IMO Exhaust Gas
Cleaning Systems Guidelines (MEPC 184(59) – 2009 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning
Systems).
MEPC 184 (59) specifies two schemes of certification and verification where Scheme A
compliance of SOx scrubbers means initial approval and certification of performance
followed by in-service continuous monitoring of operating parameters with daily checking of
SO2/CO2 emission ratio and for Scheme B compliance of SOx scrubbers a continuous
emissions monitoring system of SO2/CO2 emission ratio with in-service daily spot checks of
operating parameter is required.
NOx emission control

Regulation 13 restricts NOx emissions of marine diesel engines. Unlike SOx emission control
limits all ships depending on the region travelled, it divides the engines into three “Tiers”
depending on the date of ship construction or the date of installation of additional or non-
identical replacement engines and the engine’s rated speed, as shown in Figure .
IMO requires ships built on or after 1st January 2000 to meet Tier I emissions levels. Ships
built on 1st January 2011 or later must meet the Tier II standard. For Tier III, ship constructed
on or after 1st January 2016 sailing inside and outside ECA-NOx will have two specified
limits respectively. Currently there are two ECAs-NOx, namely the North American ECA-
NOx and the United Stated Caribbean ECA-NOx regions, which will be in effect in 2016.

Figure 2. Regulation 13 NOx limits
Resolution MEPC 177(58) of NOx Technical Code adopted in 2008 contains mandatory
procedures for the testing, survey and certification of marine diesels.
1.2.2. The United States Marine Emission Standards
All the vessels flagged of registered in the United States or vessels operating in U.S. waters
must follow the U.S. federal regulations as per the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency breaks the diesel powered compression engines into three
different categories based on displacement (swept volume) per cylinder as shown in Table 1
(available from http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/marine.php [Accessed 6 January
2013]). Each category represents a different engine technology.
Table 1. U.S. EPA marine engine categories.

Category Displacement per Cylinder (D) Basic Engine Technology
Tier 1-2 Tier 3-4
1 D < 5 dm3* D < 7 dm3 Land-based non-road diesel
2 5 dm3 ≤ D < 30 dm3 7 dm3 ≤ D < 30 dm3 Locomotive engine
3 D ≥ 30 dm3 Unique marine engine design
*And power ≥ 37 kW
Ocean-going vessels such as container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships using
category 3 marine engine, typically range in size from 2,500 to 70,000 kW, must meet the
6 Shih-Tung Shu
equivalent standards to IMO MARPOL Annex VI. Further regulations on category 3 engines
regarding PM, HC and CO control are being finalized by U.S. EPA. As stated in the U.S.
Emission Standard website: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/marine.php, a HC
emission standard of 2.0 g/kWh and a CO standard of 5.0 g/kWh from new Category 3
engines are adopted. No emission standard was adopted for PM, but manufacturers are
required to measure and report PM emissions.

1.3. Literature Reviews
1.3.1. Abatement Technologies Related
The stringent MARPOL regulations of seaborne air emission reduction have raised ship
owners’ attentions to Exhaust Gas Treatment (EGT) systems. Onshore EGT systems for
vehicles and power plants have been developed and used in a wide range of applications over
the past two decades, while the marine EGT applications are relatively new to their users. The
typical concerns are the reduction efficiency, cost of EGT systems and compliant alternative
for MARPOL regulations.
Many impact assessment studies have contributed to provide a better understanding of the
modern marine EGT systems and the economical impacts. One of the earliest impact
assessment studies was conducted by Ritchie A. et al. (2005). The study investigated the cost,
emission reduction potential and practicalities of ship emission abatement technologies. The
report mainly focused on a number of general assumptions and methods utilized to estimate
the costs and emission reduction results. It also summarized the efficiencies of abatement
technologies considering the maturity of technologies and their estimated “business as usual”
uptake. The quantifications of reduction efficiencies and costs per kilowatt for different
abatement technologies have provided good technical references for future abatement
equipment studies.
Later on in 2009, Bosch P. et al. conducted a cost benefit analysis for supporting the impact
assessment accompanying the revision of Directive 1999/32/EC on the Sulphur Content of
certain liquid fuels. The study assessed the effects, costs, risks and technical requirements that
are associated with the use of emission abatement equipment (SOx and NOx) by ships. Costs
of new and retrofit abatement technologies were estimated. Some data from the report
conducted by Ritchie A. et al. (2005) are used as reference. The estimation provided different
scenarios using 1.5, 0.5 and 0.1% sulphur content in fuel. Furthermore, it discussed the IMO
technical criteria for exhaust abatement equipments, such as pH, PAH, turbidity issues for
wash water discharge. It concluded that the use of scrubbers may be an economically
attractive option in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) and also worldwide from 2020,
while the measures should be taken to assure that the marine environment is protected.
8 Shih-Tung Shu
Meanwhile, Stavrakaki A. et al. (2009) proposed an impact assessment for the revised Annex
VI of MARPOL. The appendix summarized six reports regarding revision of MARPOL
Annex VI including interviews with two scrubber vendors. Cost data analysis, collected from
various data sources, was made to compare with different categories of vessel and engine size.
Capital, operating and annualized costs of scrubber per vessel are presented in the summary
table,
Kalli J. et al (2010) conducted a quantitative estimation of the additional costs of the Baltic
ECAs focusing on the NOx abatement technologies. It stated that SCR is the only technology
available today which meets MARPOL tier III reduction requirements and from which there
is enough information to make the cost estimates. Cost calculations in the study showed that
NOx abatement will cost 2,585 to 15,440 Euros per abated tonne of nitrogen depending on the
type of a ship and the method of calculation, while the average cost is about 4,325 to 6,059
Euros per tonne of nitrogen. In the conclusion, it noted that the potential for modal shift from
sea transport to road or rail transport caused solely by the NOx regulations will be very small
or non-existent.
Rather than focusing only on the economical sides, the ecological and environmental issues
were also considered and discussed after various cost estimations have been made since 2005.
Grebot B. et al. (2010) proposed a study to review assessments undertaken of the revised
MARPOL Annex VI regulations. The study’s purpose was to draw together the conclusions
of six independent reports about the potential impacts of the revised MARPOL Annex VI
regulations on sulphur emissions on the maritime sector. The average increase in fuel cost per
ton was estimated to be of around 80%. The cost of alternative compliance such as seawater
scrubber was expected to be 20 to 50 % of the total cost of switching fuels. However, it
indicated that some concerns have been raised regarding the uncertainties related to the
availability and reliability of this novel technology. Challenges of for instance, ecological and
environmental concerns of sludge disposal, availability of space on vessel, interaction with
other abatement measure such as selective catalytic reduction, fuel consumption penalty and
uncertainty over costs and technology have to be faced and solved.
In 2011, the market for EGT systems has developed over time and there are more and more
EGT system suppliers. Jürgens R. et al (2011) proposed a state of the art and efficiency report

which gave detailed abatement technology overview and vendors’ information. Seven
scrubber manufacturers were introduced with system efficiency trial results, waste streams,
system details and system description provided by the supplier. Particulate precipitations
inside wet scrubber, dry scrubber and SCR systems were discussed. It noted that Abatement
technology should not only clean up the emissions, but also the obligation to not interfere
with the performance of the engine.
One of the major engine manufacturers and EGT system supplier (Wärtsilä, 2011) provided a
product guide containing data and system proposals for the early design phase of marine
abatement installations. Technical data and configurations of wet scrubber systems and SCR
technology were presented and indicated the size and weight of the systems, sludge
generation, washwater flow rate, NaOH consumption rate and urea consumption rate.
Even though EGT systems regarding SOx abatement have gained more experience via several
pilot testing projects, there are still concerns about practical operations. Intertanko (2012)
published a guidance published in July covering the review of the regulatory regime,
alternatives for compliance, the advantages and challenges of the alternatives for compliance
and details on operational and safety aspects of scrubbers. Marine gas oil, liquefied natural
gas and exhaust gas treatment systems were introduced for the alternative options for
compliance. It was mentioned that LNG is not yet a practical option except in special cases
when subsidies were given for covering part of the retrofitting expenses and it may become an
option for future new buildings in accordance with the global sulphur cap. The challenges for
exhaust gas treatment systems were listed and an ECA calculator was also presented to
estimate the cost-efficient alternative to comply with (MGO or scrubbers) as a function of
ship’s life span with the estimation time spent in ECAs.
Lloyd’s Register (2012) also published a guideline for ship owners and operators. The
guideline provided a general overview of regulations and technologies. SOx scrubbers and
NOx reducing devices are introduced as the exhaust gas treatment systems (EGTs). Two NOx
reducing devices were noted, namely SCR and EGR to address their potential and availability
for lowering the NOx emissions under the limit in accordance with the Tier III rules. The
issues of installing EGTs such as the risk, backpressure, and maintenance have also been
pointed out with. It was very comprehensive for readers to understand from the statutory
regulations to the comparisons between different scrubber technologies through the clear
10 Shih-Tung Shu
introduction to the state of the art and the case studies of SOx scrubber onboard the ferry ship
Pride of Kent and Ficaria Seaways, which provides empirical scrubber installation.
1.3.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Related
Life cycle cost analysis is a powerful method for calculating costs incurred throughout a
product’s life. It became popular in 1960s as an instrument to ensure the cost effectiveness of
purchasing any equipment. The theory and procedures of LCCA evolved over time and it is
now applied to various engineering projects. In 1997, Woodward published a paper
summarizing several LCCA procedures. The LCCA terminology including the elements of
LCC, methodologies to determine discount rate, definitions of operating, maintenance and
disposal cost is introduced. He addressed the importance of performing sensitivity analysis to
consider uncertainties in the future. Key factors such as cost, time, trade-off, financial
functions and organisational functions should be highlighted in a LCCA. In the conclusion,
LCC is defined as “a concept which aims to optimise the total costs of asset ownership, by
identifying and quantifying all the significant net expenditures arising during the ownership of
an asset”.
Many universities and governmental departments have adopted LCCA and developed their
own LCCA procedures such as Mearig et al. (1999) and Davis M. et al. (2005). In 1999,
Mearig and Coffee proposed the LCCA handbook for State of Alaska Department of
Education & Early Development. LCCA is suggested to building owners for broadening their
perspective to include not just the facility in terms of costs to design and to build, but also
operations, maintenance, repair, replacement and disposal costs. The guidelines were
established in the handbook to assist Alsakan school districts, their consultants, and
communities in evaluating the LCC of school construction decisions.
Later on in 2006, Davis M. et al. developed a LCCA guideline at University Stanford Land
and Buildings. The study categories provided case studies of LCCA implementation in energy
systems, mechanical systems, electrical systems, building envelope and structural systems.
LCCA was defined as a process of evaluation the economic performance of a building over its
entire life and base on the assumptions that more than one alternative option can meet the
programmatic needs and achieve acceptable performance while theses options have differing

initial costs, operating costs, maintenance costs and possibly different life cycles. A detailed
LCC spread sheet was provided to explain the calculation.
International Standard Organization (ISO) document 15686-5 (2008) provided the standard of
LCC. It was subjected to Building & constructed assets – Service life planning - Part 5: Life
cycle costing. The document covered LCCA Scope, normative references, decision variables,
environmental impacts, period of analysis, uncertainties and risks and reporting. Terms,
definitions and abbreviations of LCCA were listed to provide common communications
between projects.
Regarding impact assessment using LCCA to evaluate alternatives which have potential to
meet MARPOL Annex VI regulation limits, there are three studies worthy noting, namely one
thesis work from Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration (Alvestad T.
R., 2011), a Green Ship of the Future project (Klimt-Mollenbach C. et al., 2012) and a
scrubber selection guide from The Glosten Associates (Reynolds K. J. et al., 2012).
Alvestad T. R. (2011) analysed three Norwegian Utkilen ships’ LCC for three different
alternatives regarding MARPOL Annex VI emission regulations. A 25 year lifetime was
assumed in the study to compare ships using IFO380, MGO, scrubber technology and LNG
and NPV cost comparisons were made. Scrubber cost estimation was made and generalised
based on previous studies in terms of cost per kilowatt and no specific scrubber type was
mentioned to represent the scrubber installed on the ships. It is stated that lacking experience
and application of SOx scrubbing technology and low availability of LNG limits the adoption
of the alternatives. Furthermore, the author mentioned an expanding market for LNG is to be
expected, while SOx scrubbing technology is also most likely to have further development.
Klimt-Mollenbach C. et al. (2012) conducted an analysis based on an existing 38500 DWT

tanker vessel, evaluated two potential solutions able to meet the requirements of the IMO
regulations regarding SOx in the Emission Control Areas in 2015 and globally in 2020.
Scrubber installation and LNG propulsion are proposed as solutions regarding technical and
economical feasibility, while MGO is used as the base case. It concluded that the payback
period of the scrubber is primarily sensitive to the price spread between HFO and MGO, and
it depends also highly on the operation time inside ECAs. For the case tanker, the study
12 Shih-Tung Shu
indicated that the most favourable from an economical point of view will be to switch to
MGO when operating in ECAs.
Reynolds K. J. et al. (2012) developed a guideline for the scrubber selection in determining
the emission requirements and calculated potential cost saving and provided information
about the integration and operational challenges of varies EGTs technologies. The study
emphasized mainly on the SOx scrubber technologies. The life cycle cost analysis was
performed with respect to a 4000 TEU container, a 2000 TEU container and a 60000 DWT
tanker with three different routes. Comparisons between different SOx scrubbers on the same
vessel were also made. The study summarized the integration, operations and maintenance
practicalities and indicated that starting in 2015 ships which burn at least 4000 metric tons of
fuel oil annually within an ECA should consider the EGTs. It claimed that in spite of the
challenges of ship arrangement, operations and logistics, the cost savings potential remains
significantly high.
1.3.3. Installation of Abatement Technologies Related
When installing an EGT system onboard, impacts of installation are typically the major
concerns of ship owners regarding technical and economical aspects, while local authorities
and concern more about environmental influences. There are some studies available based on
the actual installations of abatement technologies onboard which might provide more details
and experiences collected.
Hufnagl M. et al. (2005) conducted a final report regarding effects of seawater scrubber
onboard P&O ferry Pride of Kent. Sampling tests were the main focus. Nutrients, pH value,
temperature, trace metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and plankton were
measured and the accumulation and two toxicity tests were also performed. It stated that
higher sulphate and nitrate concentrations were found in the outlet, but no decrease of the pH
inside the ports or close to the ferry was observed. The study indicated that there was no
negative influence of the scrubbing system to the port environments.
Bradley M. J. (2006) submitted a final report to the port authority of New York and New
Jersey and New York City Department of Transportation. The study reported the analysis,
specification, installation, regulatory approvals and emission performance assessment of SCR

system on the Alice Austen, a ferry ship between Staten Island and Manhattan. It was stated
that from early 2003 to 2006 around 16.5 tons of NOx reduction per year were removed. The
analysis showed that SCR system was capable to provide approximately 52% to 66%
reduction for a one-way trip with less than 8 ppm of ammonia slip.
Robbins M. J. (2007) submitted a feedback report of SCR Project onboard MV Solano which
was procured and delivered to the City of Vallejo as a low-emissions ferry in August 2004. It
mentioned that The SCR system added $472,594 to the cost of the $11,300,000 vessel, or
4.2% of the total cost of construction and the operating cost impact were judged to be $723
per day including urea consumption and catalyst block replacement. A SCR failure situation
was reported and the possible explanations were salt damage, thermal damage, and possibly
vibration or physical shock damage to all of the catalyst blocks.
Holland America Line and Hamworthy Krystallon submitted (2010) a final report of Seawater
Scrubber Technology Demonstration Project on the MS Zaandam to the U.S Environmental
Protection Agency. The report presented the project overview, environmental monitoring,
engine emission monitoring, washwater monitoring and evaluation of soot in the wash water
discharge. It stated that the testing platform proved the reduction efficiency of the open loop
seawater scrubber system with 75% reduction rate for SOx and 57% reduction rate for PM.
Furthermore, the periodic washwater analyses were conducted to monitor pH value,
temperature, turbidity, alkalinity, chemical oxygen demand and conductivity. The report
concluded that additional system components must be installed to remove the soot from the
wash water discharge and some future tasks like ambient water quality testing, refurbishing
scrubber internals and fitting the demister were anticipated.
Kjølholt J. et al (2012) contributed to an environmental project organized by Danish

Environmental Protection Agency. The study provided to a detained assessment regarding the
water discharge from exhaust gas scrubbers. It was found that compared to current
environmental acceptability levels the releases from scrubbers can be expected to be
considerably below the levels of ecological concern. Nevertheless, risk assessments must be
taken for any specific area regarding contamination levels and releases from other sources.
The sludge sample taken from a seawater scrubber installed onboard Ficaria Seaways
operating in closed loop freshwater mode showed the concentration of nickel, vanadium and
petroleum hydrocarbons which should be classified as hazardous waste and must be treated
14 Shih-Tung Shu
and disposed of accordingly when transported to land. The costs of sludge disposal in Danish
ports were estimated in the scenario that it must be transported to the waste treatment
facilities.
Hansen J.P. (2012) wrote the public testing report of a hybrid scrubber system installed on-
board the DFDS vessel Ficaria Seaways. It was an installation project co-operated between
Alfa Laval, MAN Diesel & Turbo. The project was co-financed by the Danish Environmental
Agency under a program for testing and promoting new environmental technologies. The test
results showed a washwater discharge rate of 2 - 4 m3/hr for the closed loop mode operation
while up to 1000 m3/hr of water is discharged in SW mode. The soot collected in closed loop
mode consists of unburned hydrocarbons and heavy metals and the amount of soot in the open
loop mode was so limited that the turbidity measurement and PAH content are below the
limits stated in MEPC guidelines.
1.3.4. Other Literature Reviews
Besides the major literatures focusing on the EGT system, two more studies are presented
here regarding the emission factor and the end-of-life issue. It was noted (Cooper D., 2002)
that emissions from ship can be quantified. The study presents emissions factors which were
derived from a database consisting of exhaust measurements from around 80 ships involving
ca. 170 marine engines. A review of emission data and published literature emission factor
databases has been conducted. In addition, different future scenarios for the year 2005 and
2008 were calculated.
The ship recycling issues were introduced (Lloyd’s Register, 2011) regarding practice and
regulation today. A brief ship scrapping history was first summarized to provide conventional
ship recycling locations, methodologies and conditions. The Hong Kong Convention
contributing to the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships was presented with the
entry into force conditions. Once it enters into force, ship recycling must comply the
regulations and prepare documentations such as Inventory of Hazardous Material and Ship
Recycling Plan. Recycling case studies were presented for better understanding the
difficulties and challenges.

2. LIFE CYCLE COSTING
Without truly understanding the concept term: “life cycle costing”, no life cycle cost analysis
can be properly performed. As defined by White et al (1976): “The life cycle cost of an item
is the sum of all funds expended in support of the item from its conception and fabrication
through its operation to the end of its useful life”. In other words, a product’s life cycle
costing equals to all the expenses that one has to pay for the product before either abandoning
it or putting it on the shelf forever.
Life cycle cost typically can be divided into four categories: construction, operation,
maintenance and end-of-life, or so called purchasing, using, maintenance and disposal as
shown in the figure below: (ISO, 2008)
Life-cycle cost
Construction Operation Maintenance End-of-life
Figure 3. Categories of LCC
While life cycle cost is a comprehensive concept, a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is more of
a tool that measures when the expenses come in and how much they actually cost now or in
the future. To precisely describe LCCA, it is an economic method of evaluating a project’s
cost throughout its life-cycle systematically. Alternatives fulfilling the project requirements
should be provided for life-cycle cost analysis in order to compare the overall economic
performance throughout the stage of construction, operation, maintenance and end-of-life.
Why do people need LCCA and when and where do they use LCCA? To answer these
questions, the theory and some applications of LCCA must be introduced in the following
section.
16 Shih-Tung Shu
2.1. Theory and Applications
LCCA has been a powerful method for engineering projects and became popular in 1960s that
U.S. government agencies took the concept as an instrument to ensure the cost effectiveness
of purchasing any equipment. (Bescherer F., 2005)
It was then very popular among governmental projects and has been passed down to private
enterprises later on for building constructions, production line equipments and so on. LCCA
is especially suitable for early project stage that needs cost-effectiveness evaluations not only
from single first cost or add on operation costs but from long-term cost perspectives which
give a better assessment for decision making.
LCCA can be implemented at any level of design procedure as well as any existing
engineering system to evaluate the cost throughout the product life time. For examples:
Building construction, automobiles, airplanes, ships building or as the study focuses, the
marine scrubber technologies will be the target of LCCA.
To perform LCCA, a terminology is needed for user to follow or to make sure the definitions
of life cycle costing is the same no matter where and when it is mentioned. In this case, ISO
15686 gives guidelines for performing LCCA which takes relevant costs arising from
acquisition through operation to disposal. It includes a comparison between alternatives or an
estimation of future upcoming costs within the designated study period.*”Alaska handbook”
Cost, Time and Discount rate are three key components of LCCA. Cost represents all the
expenses incurred throughout the life-cycle. Time marks the study period of which incurred
costs should be taken into account. And discount rate transforms the future costs into present
day values. These three components build up principles and purposes that are discussed in the
next section.

2.2. Principles and Purposes
2.2.1. Cost
There are two categories of cost or so called expense, namely initial expense and future
expense. Initial expenses are all costs incurred prior to occupation of the facility, while future
expenses are all costs incurred after occupation of the facility. Cash flow of cost is discounted
by the real or nominal discount rate to transform the future expenses into discounted costs and
can be summed up as the net present cost.
2.2.2. Time
The second LCCA component is Time, or so called study period. The study period is the
period of time over the ownership of the equipment that all costs incurred are taken into
account of the evaluation. The study period can vary from ten to fifty years depending on the
preference of the user. Normally, the study period is shorter than the intended life of the
equipment.
2.2.3. Discount Rate
The third LCCA component is Discount rate. ISO 15696-5 defines discount rate as factor or
rate reflecting the time value of money that is used to convert cash flows occurring at
different times to a common time. There are two types of discount rate, namely nominal
discount rate and real discount rate. Nominal Discount Rate takes general inflation or
deflation rate into account in the cost of a particular asset under consideration while Real
Discount Rate doesn’t.
In order to combine the expenses in the future and in the present time, the present value of the
all expenses has to be determined first based on the same time frame, because cost accruing in
the future has to be discounted account for the fact that it has less value than in the present
day. The NIST Handbook 135, 1995 edition, defines Present Value as “the time equivalent
value of past, present or future cash flows as of the beginning of the base year.” The term of
18 Shih-Tung Shu
Net Present Value (NPV) represents the summation of the discounted future cash flows and
sometimes it can be defined as Net Present Cost (NPC) if only costs are included.
2.2.4. LCCA Procedure
There are many approaches to perform a LCCA and there is no standard procedure recognized
for users around the world. As long as the definition and objective of LCCA are clear enough
and the three key components are handled properly, the approach can be a good LCCA
procedure.
In the Guidelines for LCCA of Stanford University (Davis M. et al., 2005), the LCCA
procedure is divided into five steps as shown in Figure 4.
Step 1. Establish clear objectives
Step 2. Determine the criteria for evaluating alternatives
Step 3. Identify the base case and develop alternative designs
Step 4. Gather cost information
Step 5. Perform LCC calculations for each alternative
Figure 4. Steps of LCCA
Step 1: Establish clear objectives. Without clear objectives, LCCA cannot be a successful tool
to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the project. Before moving on to any calculation,
providing a project description and goal of performing LCCA can establish a better
understanding of the project so as to ensure that the decision making process is on the right
track.
Step 2: Determine the criteria for evaluating alternatives. The two typical criteria considered
in LCCA are the life-cycle cost and the payback time over a designated study period between

all alternatives. In other words, decisions can be made depending on the results of total costs
and the time needed for recovering the initial investment.
Step 3: Identify the base case and develop alternative designs. The alternative that fulfills the
standard design or minimum requirements for a project is defined as the base case. There
should be other alternatives to be evaluated against the base case in LCCA. Information for
options has to be provided in details comparing the base case to run the proper life-cycle cost
calculations.
Step 4: Gather cost information. Cost information can be obtained from a variety of sources,
including cost estimating consultants, contractors, vendors, designers and users. From cradle
to grave, all costs should be gathered, for example, construction, utility, maintenance, service
and in some cases remodeling costs.
Step 5: Perform LCC calculations for each alternative. LCC calculations for each alternative
are performed for the last stage. Besides LCC the criteria defined in step 2, sensitive analysis
can be conducted as well to include possible future scenarios. Interpretations of final result
based on the sensitive analysis can be different.
By implementing this five steps procedure to the topic of this study, a brief project description
containing the objectives, cost metric, alternative group and cost information is introduced in
the following section.
20 Shih-Tung Shu
2.3. Scrubber System Project Description
A brief project description of scrubber system can be presented by following the five steps
procedure and it includes a clear objective, determination of alternatives, baseline and cost
information:
This study uses the terminology of LCCA to understand the economical impacts between
different scrubber systems. It aims at the exhaust abatement technologies in accordance with
MARPOL Annex VI regulation 14 which limits on the sulphur content of fuel to restrict SOx
and particulate matter emissions. Scrubber is designed to clean the exhaust gas.
The objective of the study is to evaluate a number of scrubber types for retrofitting or new-
built ships and determine which, if any, are worth implementing. The life-cycle cost of every
scrubber system alternative will be calculated and compared.
There are mainly four scrubber types, namely open loop seawater, closed loop fresh water,
hybrid and dry scrubbers. The base case is using marine gas oil without installing any of the
scrubber system.
Cost information of the scrubber is collected from research studies, vendor’s brochures, news
articles and inquires to the vendors. No accurate price can be provided due to lack of
commercial installations. The LCCA will be introduced and performed in Chapter 6.

3. EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OVERVIEW
The increasing demand from society for air emission reduction has accelerated the
development of the Exhaust Gas Treatment (EGT) systems. Onshore EGT systems for
vehicles and power plants have been developed and used in a wide range of applications over
the past two decades, while the number of marine EGT applications remains relatively few.
The maturity of EGT technology itself has long proven. Nevertheless, for marine uses it
requires more application studies and users’ feedbacks.
Based on the abatement target, EGT systems can be divided into three categories: Sulphur
Oxide (SOx), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM) abatement technologies.
Although some products claim to be able to remove more than one pollutant together, it is still
discussed separately since there is insufficient information and empirical data on the
combined technology available for further discussions.
3.1. Sulfur Oxide (SOx) Abatement Technologies
3.1.1. Wet Scrubbers
Water is utilized to wash off the sulphur content of exhaust gas in the use of wet scrubbers.
Depending on the type of scrubber, either seawater with natural alkalinity or fresh water
dosed with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is brought into close contacts with the exhaust gas and
treated properly before discharging back to the ocean or circulating back to the system. Wet
scrubbers are usually installed in the engine casing or funnel in a vertical direction, since it is
not possible to install the scrubbers horizontally as the efficient needs the counter current
interaction between the exhaust gas and the scrubbing water.
Wet scrubbing technology is a proven technology which has been utilized on many land-
based industrial applications for years. Many experts and vendors believe that wet scrubbing
is a simple and efficient way to remove SOx and particulate matter from marine engine
exhausts.
Wet scrubbers can be divided into three types: Open Loop Sea Water Scrubber (SWS) system,
Closed Loop Freshwater Scrubber (FWS) system and Hybrid Scrubber (HS) system which
22 Shih-Tung Shu
can operate in both open and closed loop modes. Some major components are used in all wet
scrubbers, such as a scrubber unit, water treatment plant, residual handling facility for sludge
and sets of scrubber control and emission monitoring system. Pipelines, pumps, coolers and
tanks will link through all the major components in different way depending on scrubber
types and engineering design.
Open Loop Seawater Scrubber (SWS) System

In a SWS system, seawater is pumped from the sea into the scrubber unit, mixed with exhaust
gas, filtered and cleaned in the water treatment system before discharged back into the open
sea, as shown in the schematic drawing in Figure 5. Sludge filtered from the washwater is
stored in the sludge tank which needs to be disposed of at port facilities and can not be
incinerated onboard. No washwater is re-circulated in the SWS system.
The basic chemistry for open loop seawater system can be described along the following
principles:
SO2 + H2 → H2SO3 (sulphurous acid) → H+ +HSO3- (bisulphite)

HSO3- (bisulphite) → H+ + SO32- (sulphite)
SO32- (sulphite) + 1/2 O2 → SO42- (sulphate)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) will be dissolved and ionised in seawater creating sulphurous acid. The
sulphurous acid is then ionised in water with normal acidity creating bisulphite and sulphite
ions. Sulphite ions will then be oxidised into sulphate since oxygen is in the seawater.
SO3 + H2O → H2SO4 (sulphuric acid)

H2SO4 + H2O → HSO4- (hydrogen sulphate) + H3O+
HSO4- (hydrogen sulphate) + H2O → SO42- (sulphate) + H3O+
Similarly for the sulphuric acid formed from SO3, it will undergo reactions which turn
hydrogen sulphate into sulphate ions. The acidity resulting from the chemical reactions in
SWS systems is neutralised by the alkalinity in the seawater by pumping sufficient seawater
into the scrubber unit. Therefore, the amount of seawater needed depends significantly on the
natural buffering capacity of seawater.

Figure 5. A open loop SWS system [Lloyd’s Register 2012]
Closed Loop Freshwater Scrubber (FWS) System

In a FWS system, fresh water is pumped from freshwater tank into the scrubber unit, mixed
with exhaust gas, filtered and cleaned in the water treatment system before circulating back to
the system. Unlike the SWS system, washwater is reused in the system. Sludge filtered from
the washwater is stored in the sludge tank, which also needs to be disposed of at port facilities
and can not be incinerated onboard. The schematic drawing can be shown in Figure 6.
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) is dosed to the washwater to buffer the acidity resulting from the
chemical reactions instead of the alkalinity in the seawater. The basic chemistry for open loop
seawater system can be described along the following principles:
2 Na+ + 2 OH- + SO2 → Na2SO3 (aq sodium sulphite) + H2O

2 Na+ + 2 OH- + SO2 + 1/2 O2 → Na2SO4 (aq sodium sulphate) + H2O
SO3 + H2O → H2SO4 (sulphuric acid)
2 NaOH + H2SO4 → Na2SO4 (aq sodium sulphate) + 2H2O
24 Shih-Tung Shu
Figure 6. A closed loop FWS system [Lloys’s Register 2012]
Sulphur oxides are dissolved and react to form sodium bisulphite, sulphite and sulphate. The
proportion of each relies on the pH value and available oxygen.
Small quantity of treated washwater is bled off to reduce the concentration of sodium sulphate;
otherwise the formation of sodium sulphate crystals will lead to progressive degradation of
the washwater system. The typical bleed-off rate is approximately 0.1m3/MWh. The bleed-off
of treated washwater can either be kept in the holding tank for port facility or discharged into
the sea.
Hybrid Scrubber (HS) System

A HS system can be operated in either open or closed loop mode. It provides the flexibility
for ships to operate when travelling inside low alkalinity region or sensitive region where
washwater discharge is forbidden. On the other hand, a HS system is more complex than
either SWS or FWS system. More components need to be installed onboard. The schematic
drawings of open loop mode and closed loop mode of the HS system are shown as in Figure 7
and Figure 8 respectively.

Figure 7. A HS system operating in open loop mode [Lloys’s Register 2012]
Figure 8. A HS system operating in closed loop mode [Lloys’s Register 2012]
3.1.2. Dry Scrubbers
Unlike wet scrubber, using either sea water or fresh water as medium, dry scrubber utilises
calcium hydroxide in granulate form to clean out the sulphur contents. As shown in Figure 9,
26 Shih-Tung Shu
granulates drop slowly from a supply silo through a two-stage construction of absorber to a
discharge system under gravity.
When exhaust gas passes perpendicularly through an absorber full of calcium hydroxide
granulates, the first stage of granulates, located below the second one, is used as a sacrificial
layer for removing the rough sooty particles and other residuals, in a similar way of
particulate matter filter. The second stage of granulates, meeting the exhaust gas while still
fresh, is where the desulphurization occurring and the chemical reactions scrub away the SO 2
and SO3. The dwell time of the exhaust gas inside the absorber is approximately 3.7 seconds.
The used granulates, which are turned into gypsum with the retained spherical form, are then
conveyed by the discharge system to a granulate storage onboard. The schematic drawings of
dry scrubber system (Available from: http://couple-systems.de/index.php/dryegcs-new.html
[Accessed 6 January 2013]) is shown as in Figure 9.
Figure 9. A dry scrubber system [Couple System]
A monitoring system is needed to ensure the automated process of continuous supplying and
discharging. The basic chemistry for dry scrubber can be described along the following
principles:

SO2 + Ca(OH)2 → CaSO3 (calcium sulphite) + H2O

2CaSO3 + O2 → 2CaSO4 (calcium sulphate)
CaSO4 + 2H2O → CaSO4.2H2O (calcium sulphate dehydrate – gypsum)
Calcium sulphite is first form due to the reaction between sulphur dioxide (SO 2) and calcium
sulphite (CaSO3), and then oxidised and hydrated in the stream to form gypsum. Similarly for
SO3, it will undergo reactions and generate gypsum at the end.
SO3 + Ca(OH)2 + H2O →CaSO4.2H2O (calcium sulphate dehydrate – gypsum)
A dry scrubber system offers compatibility with other EGT systems, since the process simply
brings the exhaust gas in contact with granulates and the chemical reaction is exothermic, no
heat is taken away. In other words, the dry scrubber can be placed before a waste heat
recovery or a Selective Catalyst Reaction system which has an effective catalytic reduction
temperature ranging from 300°C to 500°C.
The onboard monitoring system of dry scrubber can take up to 5 exhaust gas samplings at the
same time. Typical locations are raw exhaust gas upfront of the scrubber, cleaned exhaust gas
downstream of the scrubber and the intermediate of stage 1 and 2 inside the scrubber.
Calibration and maintenance needed are few according to the onboard monitoring manual
from the scrubber manufacturer. Only in case of the sensor failure, the sensor must be
replaced, otherwise there is no specific maintenance needed for sensors and transmitters.
(Couple system, personal communication)
The operation onboard can be controlled by the monitoring display, such as conveyers,
rotating value sluice, etceteras. The performance data of the past 18 months are recorded to a
hard-disk inside the system and a copied data file can be obtained by surveyors with the USB
stick installed inside the control cabinet. Data are also sent to the manufacturer on a weekly
basis.
28 Shih-Tung Shu
3.2. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Abatement Technologies
The formation of NOx is highly relevant to the combustion process. There are three primary
sources of NOx, namely thermal NOx, fuel NOx and prompt NOx. Thermal NOx, often
regarded as the most relevant source when using natural fuel, is temperature dependent. In
other words, unlike SOx emission is directly related to the fuel used as input, the combustion
process inside the engine is more important for NOx emission generation. Therefore, NOx
emission depends significantly on the engine type. Normally slow engines produce more NOx
than higher speed engine. NOx emission factors were investigated (Cooper D., 2002) and can
be predicted as emission rate with respect to kilogram per hour.
NOx reduction methods can be divided into primary and secondary solutions. For primary
methods, abatement technologies are applied directly to the source of NOx and lower the
formation of NOx emissions; while secondary methods reduce NOx emissions only after they
have already been generated, the so called after treatment.
There is a wide range of methods to reduce NOx emissions by modifying engines. All the
primary methods tend to improve and optimise combustion process, improve air charge
characteristics or change the fuel injection system. Researches have been made over decades
to determine the correct combination of modifications appropriate for each engine type.
3.2.1. Primary NOx control
In Engine and Operational

By changing conventional fuel valves with sliding low-NOx fuel valves, the spray distribution
in the combustion chamber can be optimised without compromising on temperature and
thereby engine reliability. Heat release with sliding valves is lower than conventional valves
and results in a beneficial NOx reduction. (Ritchie A. et al., 2005)
The fuel consumption is not affected after sliding valve installation. The expected life span is
around 5 years. Once installed the life time of the valves will be the same as for conventional
valves.

Besides the basic “In Engine Modification” (IEM), Engine manufacturers have developed and
combined IEM to their products to reduce NOx emissions, since any engine modification
today needs to fulfil tier II limit. Combinations of advanced IEM from engine vendors are
listed in Table 2 with NOx efficiency.
Table 2. Advanced IEM combinations [Ritchie A. et al., 2005]
Direct Water Injection (DWI)

By injecting water to cool down the combustion chamber before combustion process begins,
this enables cooler combustion space and the NOx formation can be thus reduced. During the
water injection, the atomized water droplets will be vaporized immediately in the combustion
chamber and the peak temperature is lowered as a combined effect of vaporization of liquid
water absorbing heat and increased specific heat of the gas around the flame. Too much water
added will result in too long injection duration, which increases soot formation. After DWI
modification, storage and bunkering of freshwater is needed for operation. (Ritchie A. et al.,
2005)
Fuel consumption is the same and there are no noise effects. It is recommended that the fuel
used for DWI system should have sulphur content lower than 3%. Regarding emissions, it is
reported that it can meet MARPOL tier II limit based on the application of MS Silja
Symphony, which retrofitted DWI system since 1999.
30 Shih-Tung Shu
Humid Air Motor (HAM)

Humid Air Motor (HAM) system is a technology that uses heated charge air with water
vapour to reduce NOx formation during the combustion process. Seawater is used for cooling
and is heated by waste heat from the engine. HAM technology is able to reduce NOx
emissions up to 80 %. In order to achieve the high NOx removal rate, three times as much
water vapour as fuel must be introduced into the combustion chamber.
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)

Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) technology uses a fraction of the exhaust gas which is
filtered, cleaned, cooled and re-circulated back to the engine charge air. Less thermal NOx
formation can thus be done due to the reduced combustion temperature, since the specific heat
capacities of the principal exhaust components are higher than air. Furthermore, exhaust gas
re-circulated means less oxygen and the formation of nitrogen oxidation is also reduced.
A proportion of the exhaust gas from before the engine turbocharger is first cleaned by a high
pressure exhaust gas scrubber to remove sulphur and PM contents, which will cause corrosion
and fouling to the engine. A cooler will lower the temperature of the re-circulated exhaust gas
and a water mist catcher will remove entrained water droplets. Before re-entering back to the
engine, a high pressure blower will increase the pressure of the re-circulated exhaust gas. All
the process is controlled by an automated system. The schematic drawings of EGR system is
shown as in Figure 10.
The scrubber unit used in EGR system is more compact than a normal scrubber, since the
exhaust density is higher. In a test EGR system coordinated by MAN Diesel & Turbo (2012),
a closed loop wet scrubber system is fitted with sodium hydroxide dosing unit, water
treatment systems and so on. It has be noted that even though up to 80% of sulphur content
can be removed by EGR scrubber, an additional scrubber system is still required to clean the
exhaust gas again in order to fulfil MARPOL tier III NOx emission limit.
EGR system has proven to be a reliable technique for NOx emission reduction and it is not
new for automotive industry. For marine EGR system, there are still many challenges to be
solved, but it is regarded as one of the possible technologies to reduce ship’s emission.

Figure 10. An EGR system [MAN Diesel & Turbo]
EGR technology is part of the HERCULES (Higher-Efficiency Engine with Ultra-Low

Emissions for Ships) project supported by the European Commission. Starting from
HERCULES-A in 2007, a complete EGR system for two-stroke engines was first developed
including a FWS scrubber. A potential for NOx emission reductions up to 70% was
confirmed as stated in the press. (Available from: http://www.ip-hercules.com) [Accessed 6
January 2013]
In 2008 HERCULES-B project followed up, and ended in 2011 with the final results. Above
85% NOx reduction was achieved, higher than the initial target 80% reduction, with
acceptable SFOC, CO and soot. By using 3% sulphur HFO, more than 600 EGR running
hours without negative impact on combustion chamber is achieved. It is stated that two-stroke
diesel engines with EGR system comply with MARPOL tier III NOx regulation. Moreover,
EGR service test has shown that EGR is a future NOx reducing technology for HFO operation.
(Available from: http://www.hercules-b.com) [Accessed 6 January 2013]
In 2012 HERCULES-C project initiated. One of the goals is to integrate various emission
control technologies developed in the previous research projects to achieve near-zero
emissions. (Available from: http://www.hercules-c.com) [Accessed 6 January 2013]
32 Shih-Tung Shu
3.2.2. Secondary NOx Control
Selective Catalytic Reaction (SCR)

Selective Catalyst Reaction (SCR) system utilizes the chemical reaction involving the
reducing agent, ammonia (NH3), nitrogen oxide (NOx) is transformed into elemental oxygen
(O2) and nitrogen (N2), which are no longer harmful to human body. The chemical reaction
takes place when the exhaust gas, mixed with the ammonia spread, enters into the catalyst
block, which is composed of vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) with the support from a structure
frame made of titanium dioxide (TiO2) and tungsten oxide (WO). The schematic drawings of
SCR system is shown as in Figure 11.
Figure 11. A SCR system [Jürgens R, 2011]
Liquid urea is used onboard instead of ammonia considering its characteristics of non-
hazardous, colourless and odourless. It would be injected and atomize by the compressed air
into the exhaust gas flow. Urea is then decomposed into ammonia to proceed the reduction
reaction inside the catalyst block. The basic chemistry for SCR system can be described along
the following principles:
(NH2)2CO (urea) → NH3 (ammonia) + HNCO (isocyanic acid)

HNCO + H2O → NH3 + CO2
First the urea is decomposed into ammonia and isocyanic acid before the catalytic block. At
the catalytic block, the main SCR reaction takes place as nitric oxide dominates in the exhaust,
as shown below.

4NO + 4NH3 + O2 → 4N2 + 6H2O
When the fastest rate is up to 1 to 1 of NO2: NO ratio, the reaction occurs as described in the
reaction below.
2NO + 2NO2 + 4NH3 → 4N2 + 6H2O
At higher ratios the excess NO2 reacts slowly:
6NO2 + 8NH3 → 7N2 +12H2O
SCR system is a proven and efficient technology for NOx emission reduction. It has been
used for land-based applications for years. For the last 20 years major engine OEMs and SCR
system vendors have gained considerable experience in the marine SCR systems. Many 4-
stroke engines have had SCR systems installed. SCR system is improved continuously with
optimised components. Experience of SCR in two-stroke low speed engines is also growing.
To date, over 500 marine SCR systems have been installed onboard.
It is believed that SCR system is the only mean of compliance available to meet MARPOL
tier III NOx limit with more that 90% of emission reduction; while EGR system is still on the
early stage of development and it needs time to be commercialized.
34 Shih-Tung Shu
3.3. Particulate Matter (PM) Abatement Technologies
U.S EPA defines Particulate matter (also known as particle pollution) as a complex mixture of
extremely small particles and liquid droplet. It consists of a number of components such as
acids (nitrates and sulphates), organic chemicals, metals and soil or dust particle. The size of
particle is crucial and linked directly to their potential for causing health problems. Inhalable
particles can cause different levels of damage to human beings depending on their penetration
efficiency. The relationship between penetration efficiency and particle aerodynamic diameter
in micrometer is shown as Figure 12. (Aavailable from: http://www.epa.gov/apti/Materials/
APTI%20435%20student/Student%20Manual/Chapter_4_noTOC-cover_MRpf.pdf)
[Accessed 6 January 2013]
Figure 12. PM penetration efficiency.
PM2.5 and PM10 are terms used by U.S. EPA to describe particle up to 2.5 micrometer and up
to 10 micrometer. Particle with 10 micrometer in diameter or smaller is the main concern of
U.S. EPA since it can penetrate through nose and lung and cause server health problems by
affecting heart and lungs.
Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI regulates PM through the sulphur content of the fuel
oils to be used, while U.S. EPA provides the PM standards for Category 1 and 2 marine diesel
engines in terms of gram per kilowatt.

There are still debates about how PM should be regulated since it is difficult to conduct PM
measurement and some studies show that most particles removed are larger particles, while
the harmful gaseous particles remain in the exhausts.
3.3.1. Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF)
Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) is a common technology that traps down particulate matter
physically from a diesel engine by forcing exhaust stream passing through a filter. The filter
can be made of cordierite, silicon carbide, ceramic fibre or metal fibre.
After the PM is trapped, regeneration can take place either passively or actively to remove or
burn the accumulated soot from the filter. Passive regeneration uses the heat directly from the
exhaust gas stream when the temperature is high enough to initiate PM combustion process,
while active regeneration needs added fuel, heat or driver action to initiate the process.
For passive DPF, regeneration depends only on engine exhaust heat and thereby the duty
cycle of the engine is crucial for operation. It has the advantages of lower capital cost and
simple installation, but the regeneration process is uncontrolled and it may not be suitable for
every engine due to the duty cycle.
On the other hand, using active DPF can be advantageous, in which regeneration occurs
automatically and its frequency can be controlled by a system. Meanwhile, high capital cost,
extra power source for heating required, complex installation and down time for regeneration
are the downsides.
Besides regeneration, filters need to be cleaned or replaced periodically to avoid non-

combustible materials and ashes. Excessive PM and ash accumulation can cause high back
pressure. Therefore, proper maintenance and cleaning are important to DPF systems.
DPF technology is a common and useful tool of emission after treatment for automotive and
locomotive industries, while most of marine DPF systems are installed only for smaller
vessels using ultra-low sulphur fuel, such as tugs, yachts or ferries.
36 Shih-Tung Shu
3.3.2. Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC)
Instead of trapping PM down physically, Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) technology uses
chemical reaction to oxidize carbon monoxide, gas phase hydrocarbons, and the soluble
organic fraction of diesel PM.
It consists of a monolith honeycomb structure coated with platinum group metal catalyst, and
packaged in a stainless steel container. The honeycomb structure with many small parallel
channels provides a high catalytic contact area to exhaust stream. When the exhaust gas gets
in contact with the catalyst, several exhaust pollutants are converted into carbon dioxide and
water, since diesel exhaust gas already contains sufficient amounts of oxygen for the reactions.
The basic chemistry for DOC system can be described along the following principles:
C (soot) + O2 → CO2
CO + 1/2O2 → CO2
Cx Hy + O2 → CO2 + H2O
Temperature is an important factor for DOC system. It requires a minimum exhaust

temperature of around 200°C for oxidation to take place, and the catalyst activities also
increase with higher temperature. However, at high temperatures, for instant above 400°C, a
counterproductive process may occur in the catalyst, which will increase diesel particulate
matter. The chemical reaction of this counterproductive process is shown as below:
SO2 + 1/2O2 → SO3

SO3 + H2O → H2SO4
In order to avoid the undesirable formation of the extra SO4 particulates, using low sulphur
fuel is necessary. The compatibility with other SOx abatement technologies is possible with
careful temperature arrangement; otherwise a re-heater might be needed.
3.3.3. Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) is an after treatment technology that uses induced electrostatic
force to remove particulate matter from the exhaust stream. A high voltage is applied to

generate electrical field between electrode and collecting board. When the exhaust gas stream
flows through the field, particulate matters are fist charged by ions supplied around the
electrode board, pushed toward the collecting board by the Coulomb force and captured by
the board. The schematic drawing of ESP technology is shown as Figure 13. (Available from:
http://www.hitachi-pt.com/products/energy/dustcollection/principle/dustcollection.html)
[Accessed 6 January 2013]
Figure 13. An ESP system.
ESP system was reported to be highly efficient of removing particulate matters from diesel
engines without increasing back pressure. It can be operated in low power since the electrical
power needed is to push the aerosol particles instead of the whole cleaning medium such as
the washwater in scrubber systems.
Particles collected on the board need to be cleaned periodically. Rapping collecting plate,
scraping off with a brush or using water film or spray can be implemented to clean the ESP
collecting plate.
The PM collection efficiency of ESP is affected by several design factors such as the area of
specific collection plate, aspect ratio, spacing between plates and the size of PM. The
theoretical moving velocity is almost proportional to the size of particle in diameter, which
means it takes longer for smaller particles to be collected than larger ones. In this case, a
bigger ESP in size is needed to prolong the treating time to have the same collection
efficiency for all particles.
38 Shih-Tung Shu
3.4. Summary
The pollutant removal efficiency regarding SOx, NOx and PM for different technologies can
be summarized from various data sources in Table 3.
Table 3. SOx, NOx and PM abatement technologies

SOx abatement technologies1 SOx NOx PM Large Engines? Regulation?
Scrubber system >95% 70-90% V SOx ECA
NOx abatement technologies2 SOx NOx PM Large Engines? Regulation?

Internal engine modification (IEM) 30% V NOx Tier II
Direct water injection (DWI) 50% V NOx Tier II
Humid air motor (HAM) 70% V NOx Tier II
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)3 80% 85% 63% V NOx Tier III
Selective catalytic reaction (SCR) 90% V NOx Tier III
PM abatement technologies SOx NOx PM Large Engines? Regulation?

Diesel particulate filter (DPF)4 >90% X -
Diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC)5 70-90% X -
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)6 85% X -
*1 Lloyd’s Register (2012)
*2 Entec (2005) except EGR
*3 HERCULES. (Available from: http://www.hercules-b.com/1/article/english/1/2/index.htm)
*4 Technical Bulletin - Diesel Particulate Filter General Information, U.S. EPA.
Available from: http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/420f10029.pdf
*5 Available from: http://www.dcl-inc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59
*6 Ariana I. M. et al (2006)
To meet both MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13 and 14 together, ship owners have various
compliance alternatives to choose from. However, for large marine diesel engines that used
by ocean-going vessel such as container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers and cruise ships for
propulsion power, there are only limited emission control technologies which can be applied
to these engines, typically range in size from 2,500 to 70,000 kW, defined as Category 3
marine engine under U.S. Emission Standard.
Applications of PM abatement technologies can be found only on smaller tugs, yachts and
ferries and there is still no application on ocean-going vessels available to date. Meanwhile,
there are several kinds of PM particles need to be clearly defined when mentioning the
removal efficiency, let alone some uncertainties of the removal efficiency such as condensed
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

As for NOx abatement technology, Tier II limits under MARPOL Annex VI can be achieved
by using primary controls, which are currently managed by the new engine development
conducted by engine manufacturers. However, in the scenario of continuing using
conventional petroleum-based fuel oils, only SCR or EGR technology has the potential to
meet MARPOL tier III limits.
EGR system is now under development. It is proven to be one of the potential abatement
technologies to meet tier III limits according to HERCULES research projects. However, it is
still unavailable for commercial uses and needs some more time to be ready for the shipping
industry. The actual operational issues and economical impacts remain unknown.
In conclusion, there are many technologies available for SOx, NOx and PM abatement, but
only some of them are ready to meet current MARPOL Annex VI regulations and can be
installed on ocean-going vessels using petroleum-based fuel oils, namely scrubber technology,
both wet and dry systems, and SCR system.
40 Shih-Tung Shu
4. OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES
In this chapter, operational issues for scrubber and SCR technologies are discussed with case
studies. These technologies are chosen here because they are the current exhaust gas
abatement techniques available in compliance with MARPOL Annex VI regulations for large
marine engines. Dimension (space and weight), chemical consumable rate, sludge generation
rate and other operational parameters will be introduced to provide sufficient date for LCCA.
4.1. Wet Scrubber System
Wet scrubber system can be divided into three types, namely open loop seawater scrubber
(SWS), close loop freshwater scrubber (FWS) and hybrid scrubber (HS). There are several
main components for these three systems as listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Main components of wet scrubber systems

SWS FWS HS
Scrubber unit ● ● ●
Water treatment system ● ● ●
Pump equipments ● ● ●
Piping equipments ● ● ●
Sludge tank ● ● ●
Monitoring module ● ● ●
Fan equipments (optional) ● ● ●
NaOH feed module ● ●
NaOH storage tank ● ●
Buffer tank ● ●
Fresh water tank ● ●
Bleed-off holding tank ● ●
HS system has the most complex system among the three, while SWS system is the simplest
one, since there’s no chemical consumables used and less tanks needed for operation.
4.1.1. Scrubber Unit
Scrubber unit is normally constructed of corrosion-resistant materials since it provides an

extreme environment of close contact with water and hot exhaust gas and washwater in wet
scrubber systems is highly corrosive. The space and weight estimations of scrubber unit for
wet system are presented in Figure 14 and Figure 15.

Figure 14. Weight of wet scrubber system
Figure 15. Volume of wet scrubber system
The space and weight estimation is made only for dry equipment weight and single exhaust
gas inlet scrubber system.
The size of scrubber unit mainly depends on the volume of the engine exhaust gas and SOx
removal efficiency, and the weight is subjected to material selection. Different vendors have
their know-how and provide different engineering design. It is hard to predict any accurate
scrubber’s dimension, because it depends on more than one parameter and there are not
sufficient data for marine applications to date. Therefore, the technical footprint provided a
generalized result from various data source and could only be used for estimation.
Maintenance of scrubber unit is mainly periodic visual inspection through maintenance

hatches to check the interior surface and spray nozzles. In normal operation condition, the
42 Shih-Tung Shu
maintenance is minimized. With proper corrosive-resistant material and engineering design

the scrubber unit should be used throughout the system life-cycle.
Some vendors also provide multi-inlet scrubber unit (or so called integrated scrubber) that
more than one exhaust gas sources (engine or boiler) are arranged to be cleaned in the same
scrubber unit. Such arrangement can reduce the weight and space needed than multiple
scrubber units system.
4.1.2. Pumping System
The pump size is proportional to the volume of exhaust gas to provide sufficient washwater
for specific cleaning efficiency. The washwater flow rate in SWS system is around
45m3/MWh, which is higher than 20 m3/MWh in FWS scrubber system, since the buffering
capacity of seawater is less than the buffering capacity of NaOH dosed water. The power
required for the pump should be sufficient enough to life the maximum amount of washwater
from the sea to the scrubber unit, which is most of time located near to the funnel due to the
bulky size.
The power for pumping system is often regarded as the power consumption of wet scrubber
systems. In Lloyd’s Register’s study (2012), the power consumption is estimated to be 1 to
2% for total engine power scrubbed for SWS system, 0.5 to 1% for FWS system and 0.5 to
2% for HS system (depending on the operation mode).
In Wärtsilä’s brochure (2011), it states that normally there are three pumps installed near the
washwater holding tank for wet scrubber, with two pumps operating and one pump stand-by.
4.1.3. Piping System
Similar to scrubber unit, piping system is normally constructed of corrosion-resistant

materials to prevent corrosion. Experience from corrosion problems for the pilot project has
shown that glass reinforced epoxy (GRE) can be one of the suitable materials for piping
system. GRE piping is also lighter comparing to steel piping and easier to be handled during
installation.

However, due to the material characteristic, GRE piping also needs extra bracketing and lager
bended radius since it is less rigid. GRE piping near to the scrubber unit requires protection
from hot exhaust gas.
4.1.4. Sludge Tank
Sludge generation rate is related to the fuel oil quality. In Wärtsilä’s brochure (2011), the
amount of generated sludge is around 0.1 to 0.4 kg/MWh. Sludge generated from the wet
scrubber system cannot be burned onboard and must be stored until it can be handled properly
by the waste treatment facilities.
The size of sludge tank depends on the sludge generation rate and the continuous operation
days between bunkering.
4.1.5. NaOH Dosing and Storage System
NaOH consumption depends on the concentration of the NaOH solution, operating power,
sulphur content in the fuel oils used and designated SOx reduction efficiency. The dosing
module will control the amount of NaOH automatically depend on the parameters mentioned
above.
Theoretical 50% NaOH solution consumption can be drawn in Figure 16. It indicates the
relations of the parameters and should be used as guidance only.
The size of NaOH storage tank depends on the amount of NaOH needed and can be estimated
from consumption rate and the continuous operation days between bunkering.
44 Shih-Tung Shu
Figure 16. NaOH consumption rate [Wärtsilä 2011]
4.1.6. Bleed-off and Fresh Water Topping System
For FWS system or HS running in close loop mode, a certain amount of washwater needs to
be extracted from the re-circulation to remove the accumulated impurities such as oil and
combustion product sludge and the concentration of sodium sulphate. The extracted bleed-off
could be stored in a bleed-off tank or go directly into the water treatment system depending
on the engineering design. A bleed-off tank may offer flexibility, allowing scrubber operation
even when the washwater treatment system fails, but on the other hand extra space and weight
will be occupied.
The amount of washwater bled off is interrelated to the topping of fresh water, which can
make sure that there is sufficient washwater in the loop and also replenish the lost from water
evaporation. As indicated by scrubber manufacturers, the topping up water flow may be
0.1m3/MWh or even below depending on the sulphur content in the fuel oils used, washwater
temperature, engine load and the temperature of the seawater for cooling system.

4.2. Dry Scrubber System
Using calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) in granulate form instead of water as the cleaning
medium, a dry scrubber system has less components than a wet scrubber. A comparison of the
components in the wet and dry scrubber systems sorted by their functions is listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Comparison of wet and dry scrubber system components

Wet scrubber system Dry scrubber system
Scrubber unit Scrubber unit
Water treatment system -
Pump equipments Granule conveying equipment
Piping equipments Piping equipments
Sludge tank -
Monitoring module Monitoring module
Fan equipments (optional) Fan equipments (optional)
NaOH feed module Control system
NaOH storage tank Fresh granulate storage tank
Buffer tank -
Fresh water tank -
Bleed-off holding tank -
- Granulate supply silo
- Used granulate storage tank
There are two components in the dry scrubber system that cannot be sorted according to the
equipment function in wet scrubber system, namely granulate supply silo and used granulate
storage tank. Granulate supply silo is the storage adjacent to the scrubber unit right before the
close contact with the exhaust stream. Used granulate storage tank will collect all the used
granulate for further disposal or recycle used on-shore.
4.2.1. Scrubber Unit
A scrubber unit in the dry scrubber system can be also called absorber which is full with
granulates during operation. Since the volume of absorber is determined by the exhaust gas
flow rate, i.e. the engine size, the total weight of the scrubber unit equals to scrubber unit
material weight plus the weight of granulates occupying the scrubber. The space and weight
estimations of scrubber unit for dry system are presented as below.
46 Shih-Tung Shu
Figure 17. Weight of dry scrubber system
Figure 18. Volume of dry scrubber system
The estimation here is made base on the average of five engine categories from 450kW to
21600kW provided by the manufacturer. It is assumed that the volume and weight
characteristic from 21600kW to 36000kW remain the same and thus proportional to the
engine power. However, the weight and volume assumption for engine power larger than
21600kW might be over-estimated in this study. The data should only be used for rough
estimation instead of any accurate engineering calculation such as stability analysis.
The falling of granulates inside absorber is slow and lead by gravity, with several centimetres
per day. The speed of exhaust gas is also relatively slow comparing to seawater scrubber,
which can avoid the interior scratching. It is also recommended to blow out the exhaust gas
remaining in the dry scrubber system to prevent corrosion in case the system has to be shut
down for longer duration.

Maintenance of the scrubber unit is mainly periodical inspection on board including visual
check of the monitoring system and all the moving parts such as conveying mechanisms and
valves.
4.2.2. Granulate Conveying System and Power Consumption
Screw conveying system is usually utilized to transport granulates for onshore dry scrubber
applications. Experience has shown that screw conveyer is not suitable for ship application
because the platform is consistently moving and not always level.
Pneumatic conveying system is used now for moving granulates from the fresh granulate tank
to the scrubber unit. The power consumption of pneumatic system is less than the pumps in
the wet scrubber system and it is estimated at around 0.15 to 0.20% of total engine power
scrubbed.
Fresh granulates can be transported by silo road tankers and the ship can be bunkered by the
truck’s pneumatic delivery system or in big bags for small ships. Besides typical granulate
bunkering, the dry scrubber manufacturer is working on designing a special kind of container,
which gives the possibility to store both fresh and used granulate in separate compartments. It
can be handled in the same way as the standard shipping container and mounted in a
convenient location onboard directly connected to the scrubber.
4.2.3. Granulate Consumption Rate
Granulate consumption rate is estimated at a rate of 40kg/MWh to reduce 2.7% sulphur

content in the fuel oils used to 0.10% sulphur content. Bases on a density of fresh granulate of
800kg/m3, the volume needed takes up to 0.05m3/MWh.
The size of fresh granulate storage tank depends on the amount needed and can be estimated
from consumption rate and the continuous operation days between bunkering. A slightly
bigger storage tank is needed for the used granulates since the desulphurization process
increases the density of granulate.
48 Shih-Tung Shu
4.2.4. Granulate Logistic and Recycling
As the only scrubbing medium on board, the delivery of fresh and used granulates is essential.
The vendor points out that granulate handling is available world-wide within a radius of 200
km from all major ports. For supplying, logistic centres are responsible for collecting and
storing up fresh granulates from lime plants and distributing them to the ships at berth. The
means of transportation from points to points is achieved by silo trucks. The disposal of used
granulates is collected the same way as supplying is organized, and will be recycled and
reused for different purposes depending on the amount of sulphur contents.
The used granulates are gypsums and can be reused in many different ways. Some recycling
examples are given like the use for high temperature desulphurization of power plants, use as
a retarding agent of cement plants, use for slag reduction of steel plants and use for soil
remediation of agro-technology companies. Processing the used granulates containing
different amount of sulphur contents into homogeneous form is also possible for designate
recycle destination.
Couple System provides a logistic package that a ship owner only has to pay for the
transportation from the port to the logistic centre of Couple Logistic. The discharge from the
ship to the truck is free. A ten year guarantee can be made between the third company Couple
Logistic and the ship owner to insure the handling of granulates.
The supply and disposal up to 100 tons can be guaranteed on a 24-hour notice, while two
hours are required to load and discharge maximum 50 tons of granulates. Route changing on
short notice less than 24 hours might delay the schedule due to the waiting time of granulate
transportation. (Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH, personal communication)

4.3. Selective Catalyst Reaction (SCR)
Selective catalyst reaction (SCR) system normally consists of the following components:
▪ a SCR reactor housing with one or more catalyst block elements
▪ a urea control system (pumping, dosing and injection)
▪ a urea storage tank
▪ a control and monitoring system
▪ a soot/ash blowing system
4.3.1. SCR Reactor
A SCR reactor contains one or more catalyst block elements depending on the engineering
design and exhaust gas volume. The total weight of the SCR reactor equals to reactor casing
material weight plus the weight of catalyst block elements occupying the reactor. The space
and weight estimations of SCR reactor with catalyst block elements are presented as below.
Figure 19. Weight of SCR system
Figure 20. Volume of SCR system
50 Shih-Tung Shu
The estimation here is made base on the average of different engine power categories from
200kW to 21700kW provided by the manufacturer (Wärtsilä 2011). It is assumed that the
volume and weight characteristic from 21700kW to 36000kW remain the same and thus
proportional to the engine power. However, the weight and volume assumptions for engine
power larger than 21700kW might be inaccurate in this study. The data should only be used
for rough estimation instead of any accurate engineering calculation such as stability analysis.
Inside the SCR reactor, temperature of the exhaust gas, normally around 350 degrees, is
crucial for catalyst reaction and it is fuel sulphur content dependent. The typical trade off
between the minimum exhaust temperature and the sulphur content is shown as in Figure 21.
Figure 21. SCR operation temperature [Wärtsilä 2011]
In other word, when the engine starts up, it takes some time before SCR system initiates to
work efficiently. Moreover, minimum working temperature also makes the combination of
wet scrubber less feasible due to the drop of temperature if the scrubber is installed upstream,
while downstream is possible causing the clogging due to high sulphur content remains (it is
suggested to use fuel oils with less than 1.00% sulphur content by manufacturers).
Besides temperature, several factors are important for the effectiveness of SCR system
including the precise ammonia introduced, the mixing condition with exhaust gas and the
quality of porous catalyst block surface. Therefore, a good monitoring system is essential to
keep an eye on the operation condition to avoid high back pressure and ammonia-slip
problems.

4.3.2. Catalyst Block Elements
The catalyst block’s lifespan can vary from two to five years or it is suggested to replace the
block every 20,000 operating hours by some vendors. There are certain condition might
shorten the lifespan such as fouling, plugging and poisoning. Fouling refers to the general
deposition of material which masks the surface of catalyst block and prevents the reactants to
contact with the surface. Plugging is normally not visible from inspection, and it indicates the
plugging of the pores in the block and thereby reduces the contact area. An example of
catalyst block fouling is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22. Catalyst block fouling [Lloyd’s Register, 2012]
Poisoning means the chemical attack of the active element of the catalyst block and can occur
when the fuel and lubricating oil-related compounds are attached onto the block causing
progressive chemical deactivation. In addition, some cases show that abnormal high
temperature and vibration shock wave can also result in the physical failure of the block and
frame.
Any catalyst block failure may lead to high back pressure, extra fuel oil consumption and
engine wears. It is essential to maintain the block in good condition, thus periodical inspection
should be executed properly. During daily operation, it should be monitored by ship crews
and close contact with the manufacturer is necessary for trouble-shooting.
52 Shih-Tung Shu
4.3.3. Urea Consumption and Storage
The urea consumption rate is interrelated with the engine power, NOx reduction efficiency,
and urea solution concentration. It can be calculated based on the equation below (Wärtsilä
2011).
where
VUREA = Urea solution consumption [l/h]
PENGINE = Engine power outpur [kw]
mNO2= NO2 (NOx) emissions reduction [g/kWh]
MUREA = Urea ((NH2)2CO) molar mass [g/mol] = 60.07
MNO2 = NO2 molar mass [g/mol] = 46.01
KSLIP = Ammonia slip constant [g/kWh] = 0.2
CUREA = Urea solution concentration [%]
ρUREA = Urea density [kg/l] =1.1
The capacity of the urea storage tank can be calculated depending on the sludge generation
rate and the continuous operation days between bunkering. The material used for building
urea tank must meet the requirements for storing urea such as stainless steel. The temperature
of the urea solution must be higher than 0°C, therefore insulation and heating might be
requires in some installations.
4.3.4. Soot/ash Blowing System
SCR system is typically installed with a soot/ash blowing system to remove periodically soot
and ash covered on the surface of catalyst block to prevent ammonia slip. A large volume of
high pressured air is blown to cleaning the surface. The required air volume differs from
applications and could be improved by CFD simulation according to some manufacturers.
However, it is worth noting that certain catalyst surface clogging can not be removed simply
from air blowing.

4.4. Technologies Comparison
In order to understand the differences between scrubber systems, a comparison is made with
the following assumptions.
- Total engine power scrubbed :10MW

- Sulphur content of the fuel :3.5% sulphur
- Continuous operation time :1 day (24 hours)
- Some other properties :NaOH 50% solution density (1.515 kg/litre) and
water density (1 t/m3)
The weight and volume needed for scrubber unit and chemical consumable rate are assumed
based on Figure. The comparison of scrubber systems can be listed in Table 6:
Table 6. Comparison of scrubber systems

SWS FWS HS Dry
Scrubber unit weight 20 t (dry equipment) 20 t (dry equipment) 20 t (dry equipment) 130 t (including
granulate inside)
Scrubber unit volume 75 m3 75 m3 75 m3 310 m3
Power consumption 1-2% 0.5-1% 0.5-2% 0.15-0.20%
Chemical consumable no consumable NaOH solution NaOH solution Ca(OH)2 granulate
- Rate 5.7litre/MWh-%S 5.7litre/MWh-%S 15kg/ MWh-%S
- Storage needed 4800 litres (7.3 t) less than 4800 12.2 t
litres (7.3 t)
Washwater flow rate 45m3/MWh 20m3/MWh 20-45m3/MWh no washwater
Sludge generation rate 0.1-0.4 kg/MWh 0.1-0.4 kg/MWh 0.1-0.4 kg/MWh no sludge
Freshwater topping rate no freshwater used 0.1 m3/MWh 0.1 m3/MWh no freshwater used
- Storage needed 24 m3 less than 24 m3
Weight loss 20 t 51.3 t less than 51.3 t 142.2 t
+ operating seawater + operating seawater + operating seawater + other equipment
+ other equipment + other equipment + other equipment
Zero discharge? No yes yes yes
Increase back pressure? yes yes yes yes
Exhaust temperature? significant drop significant drop significant drop no drop
Corrosion possibility? yes yes yes yes
Combined with EGR? yes yes yes yes
Combined with SCR? no, unless with re- no, unless with re- no, unless with re- yes
heater heater heater
Combined with Waste yes, scrubber yes, scrubber yes, scrubber yes
Heat Recovery system? placed after WHR placed after WHR placed after WHR
54 Shih-Tung Shu
The dry scrubber unit filled with Ca(OH)2 granulate (130 tons) is heavier than the other
system (20t) and needs comparably larger space for installation (310 m3). Nevertheless, the
wet system can weigh much heavier during operation with large amount of seawater filling in
the pumping system either as washwater or cooling water. In addition, the wet scrubber
system is more complex than the dry system. It is very likely that all the systems may have
the same weight with all the equipments installed onboard such as pumps, pipes, tanks and
treatment system.
The power consumption for wet scrubber (0.5-2%) is generally higher than dry scrubber
(0.15-0.20%) since pumping larger amount of water around the ship requires more energy
than conveying granulates from the tank to the silo. Meanwhile, SWS system or HS system
operating in open loop need higher power consumption (1-2%) than FWS or HS system
operating in closed loop (0.5-1%) because higher washwater pumping rate is required to
provide sufficient buffering capacity.
Zero discharge is important for sensitive regions such as ports and estuaries. In addition, even
though many authorities may be expected to accept washwater discharge after proper
washwater treatment meeting the requirements of IMO Exhaust Gas Cleaning System
Guidelines, there might be more stringent regulations imposed by regional, national or local
authorities. For instance, it is indicated recently by Council of The European Union (2012)
that ships in EU waters can use a scrubber operating in closed mode only.
In the current EGR pilot project, a wet close-loop FWS system is used internally to remove
the soot and sulphur content in the exhaust stream before re-entering into the combustion
chamber. Dry system is also possible candidate for internal EGR utilization. To achieve IMO
Tier III limits, an additional SOx abatement technology is required. In this case, all systems
can be combined with EGR since there is neither temperature drop nor any other
incompatibility.
Unlike EGR system, temperature and sulphur content remained are crucial when combining
SCR systems with scrubber systems. As mentioned in the previous chapter, a wet scrubber
system can only be installed before a SCR system and a re-heating system is necessary for
bring back the working temperature of catalytic process, while a dry system can be installed

either before or after a SCR system. Likewise, a waste heat recovery system should be
installed before any wet scrubbing process.
For NOx abatement technology there are only two techniques that are able to meet IMO Tier
III regulations for large marine engine, namely SCR and EGR system. It is still too early to
make any meaningful comparison or comments between the two, since EGR technology is in
its early stage of development.
56 Shih-Tung Shu
4.5. Case Studies
To date, there are more than 25 scrubber system installations on ships including the SWS,
FWS (inclusive of a FWS system implemented inside EGR system), HS, Dry systems and a
CSNOx system which claims that it can remove SO2, NOx and CO2 at the same time using
Ultra Low Frequency (ULF) wave electrolysis treatment. After several years of trial testing
and pilot projects, there are an increasing number of commercialized scrubber installations in
years 2011 and 2012. The scrubber installation list is shown in Table 7.
Public testing reports are available for four of the ships, namely MS Pride of Kent, MS
Zaandam, MT Suula and Ficaria Seaways. A brief introduction to these reports is presented as
case studies in the following sections.

Table 7. List of scrubber installations
System type Installation type Ship name Ship type Engine power scrubbed Year installed Scrubber vendor Ship owner
SWS retrofit Pride of Kent ferry ship 1xAE: 1MW 2005 Wärtsilä P&O
retrofit Zaandam passenger ship 1xME: 8.64MW 2007 Wärtsilä Holland America Lines
retrofit APL Container container ship 1xAE:8MW 2011 Wärtsilä APL England
newbuilding Jolly Diamante ro-ro cargo 4xAE:2MW, 1x Auxiliary Boiler 2011 Wärtsilä Ignazio Messina
newbuilding Jolly Perla ro-ro cargo 4xAE:2MW, 1x Auxiliary Boiler 2011 Wärtsilä Ignazio Messina
newbuilding Jolly Cristallo ro-ro cargo 4xAE:2MW, 1x Auxiliary Boiler 2011 Wärtsilä Ignazio Messina
newbuilding Jolly Quarzo ro-ro cargo 4xAE:2MW, 1x Auxiliary Boiler 2011 Wärtsilä Ignazio Messina
newbuilding HHI Hull 2516 TBN NA NA 2012/2013 Wärtsilä Solvang
retrofit Shahnaz motor yacht NA NA Marine Exhaust Solutions Pietra Ligure
FWS retrofit Suula tanker ship 1xAE:680kW 2008 Wärtsilä Neste Oil Shipping
retrofit Containership VII container ship 1xME:12.6MW 2011 Wärtsilä Containerships Ltd Oy
newbuilding Equinox bulk carrier NA 2012 Wärtsilä Algoma Central Corporation
(EGR close) retrofit Alexander Maersk container ship 10MW 2009 MAN Diesel&Turbo Ap Moller Maersk
Hybrid retrofit Ficaria Seaways ro-ro cargo 1xME:21MW 2010 Alfa Laval DFDS Seaway
retrofit Baru chemical tanker 12MW 2009/2011 Clean Marine Klaveness Maritime Logistics
retrofit Tarago ro-ro cargo 1xME:25MW, 1xAE:6MW 2012 Wärtsilä Wilhelmsen
retrofit Maersk Taurus container ship 1xAE:3.5MW 2012 DuPont BELCO Ap Moller Maersk
retrofit Liberty of the Seas container ship NA 2012 Green Tech Marine Royal Caribbean
retrofit NA NA NA NA Alfa Laval Spliethoff Group
Dry retrofit Timbus cargo ship 1xME:3.6MW 2009 Couple Systems Braren Reederei, Kollmar
CSNOx* retrofit White sea tanker ship 1xME:11MW 2009 Ecospec Tanker Pacific
retrofit Independence of the Seas cruise ship NA 2012 Ecospec Royal Caribbean
*CSNOx is a technology that claims to remove SO2, NOx and PM together with the patented Ultra Low Frequency (ULF) wave electrolysis treatment.
58 Shih-Tung Shu
4.5.1. MS Pride of Kent – SWS system
Installation of an open loop seawater scrubber system on P&O Ferries’ Pride of Kent, as
shown in Figure 23, was a project proposed by Hamworthy Krystallton Ltd. (HKL, now a
Wärtsilä company) in 2005. The costs of the scrubber and installation were covered by HKL
for demonstration reason of their product.
Figure 23. MS Pride of Kent.

Available from: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/search.php?query=Pride+of+Kent&x=35&y=12
A 1MW auxiliary engine was equipped with the SWS system, but due to the constraints of the
ship’s fuel system and the engine power scrubbed was merely a small part of the total
installed power, it was not used as the compliance meeting IMO Annex VI regulations. The
scrubber was installed using much of the equipment framework from a previous unsuccessful
scrubber project and some addition modification of the ducting was also made. Glass
reinforced epoxy was used for piping due to the corrosion problems.
After more than 30000 operation hours, the results show that a 98% reduction rate of SOx and
a 70% reduction rate of PM can be achieved. The rate of sludge generation rate is
approximately 10kg per operation day. The scrubber system is now removed after six years
testing at the end of the pilot project.

4.5.2. MS Zaandam– SWS system
MS Zaandam is an existing ferry ship belonged to Holland America Line as shown in Figure
24. The SWS system installation project was initiated to treat the exhaust from one of five
main engines on the vessel in November 2006 by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
(PSCAA) and it was financed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), Holland America Line, Environment Canada, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency,
British Columbia Clean Air Research Fund, Port of Seattle (Washington) and Port Metro
Vancouver (British Columbia, Canada).
Figure 24. MS Zaandam.

Available from: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/search.php?query=Zaandam&x=39&y=5
An open loop seawater scrubber by Hamworthy Krystallton Ltd. was first installed in April
2007 and followed up with piping and instrumentation installations during ship operation
from April to August 2007. Monitoring of SWS system performance started in August 2007.
This pilot test installation aimed at answering questions about the SWS system, such as
emission reduction efficiency, washwater flow rate, concentration of washwater discharge,
sludge generation and hazardous waste classification.
An emission control evaluation was conducted by the Emissions Research and Measurement
Division (ERMD) of the Environmental Technology Center – Environment Canada in
60 Shih-Tung Shu
September 2007. The results show that an average removal rate of SO2 (75%) and PM (57%)
can be achieved on the 8.64MW 4-stroke engine using 1.77% sulphur content heavy fuel oil,
equivalent to 0.5% sulphur fuel oil used.
More than 4000 operating hours of data were collected and several future works were
indicated such as the installation of a continuous engine emission monitoring device and an
additional system to remove the soot from the wash water discharge and personnel training on
scrubber operations.
4.5.3. MT Suula– FWS system
The idea of FWS system installation was initiated in 2005 leading by scrubber manufacturer
Wärtsilä. A medium speed auxiliary engine (680kW) onboard a tanker ship “Suula”, as shown
in Figure 25, was chosen to test the close loop freshwater scrubber system. In 2008, the
scrubber was installed with water treatment system, sludge tank and NaOH storage tank, and
began the testing phase in November. Glass reinforced plastic (GRP) is also used for piping
equipments because of its material characteristic of corrosive-resistance.
Figure 25. MT Suula.

Available from: www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=160036
Several testing targets were set into different testing segments such as reduction efficiency
test, system start-up test, noise test, sledge test, bled-off washwater test, corrosion test and so

on. Special measurements were conducted by several subcontractors. Fuel, gas and water
samples were taken from the FWS scrubber system during the test period for further analyses
in the laboratories.
According to the FWS pilot test public report, the SO2 removal rate is more than 99% under
four different scrubber load levels (8 %, 40 %, 70 % and 100 %) and 30 to 60% of PM
removal can be achieved. In addition, effluent tests show that FWS system can meet the limits
for pH, turbidity, PAH and nitrate defined in IMO resolution MEPC.184 (59).
Based on the sledge test, the results indicate that the sludge wastes generated from the close
loop system can be disposed in the same way as other oil sludge generated from engines and
further treated in other reception facilities.
The power consumption of FWS system is said to be around 0.50% of the engine power
scrubbed during the testing operation period, with freshwater consumption rate of 1 metric
tonne per hour and chemical consumable rate of 130 litre NaOH solution per hour.
4.5.4. Ficaria Seaways – HS system
In 2008, DFDS Seaway and scrubber manufacturer Alfa Laval tested a hybrid scrubber
system onboard the ferry Ficaria Seaways with the cooperation of Denmark’s environmental
protection agency. The scrubber is in operation since June 2010 in route between Goteborg -
Immingham (1trip per week), Immingham – Goteborg (2 trips per week), Goteborg – Brevik
(1 trip per week), and Brevik – Immingham (1 trip per week).
Based on the previous experience of a land-based pilot test, a 21 MW 2-stroke engine by

MAN Diesel & Turbo on-board Ficaria Seaways was equipped with the hybrid scrubber
system by Alfa Laval which is capable of operating in both open and closed loop mode. A
scrubber bypass was installed to provide the flexibility of running compliant fuel. A photo of
Ficaria Seaways is shown in Figure 26.
62 Shih-Tung Shu
Figure 26. Ficaria Seaways.

Available from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?mmsi=220464000
The power consumption of HS system is estimated to be around 1.4% of total engine power
scrubbed (1% due to pumping and 0.4% due to the increased back pressure). Using high grade
stainless steel (seawater resistant) as the construction material, the scrubber unit weighs 32
tonne (including water) in operation. The system is designed to treat up to 192,000 kg/h of
exhaust gas from the 21 MW MAN engine. In addition to the scrubber unit installed, around
200 meters of piping equipment was also installed with diameters varying between 300 and
500 mm.
The public test report of HS system conducted by Danish Environmental Protection Agency
onboard Ficaria Seaways shows that the SO2 removal rate can be achieved up to almost 100%
in both open and closed loop mode using fuel oils with 2.70% sulphur content . 2 to 4 m3 of
water per hour is discharged in freshwater mode, while 1000 m3 of water per hour has to be
discharged in seawater mode. Even with this large amount of water discharged, the turbidity
measurement and PAH content are still below the limits in the MEPC guidelines
Based on the impact assessments for water discharge study regarding sludge sample tests by
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the sludge generated in close loop freshwater mode
has the concentration of nickel, vanadium and THC that it is classified as hazardous waste and
must be treated and disposed of accordingly when transported to land. There are suitable
facilities for hazardous waste reception, handling, transport, treatment and disposal of in

Danish ports. The price of sludge handling was estimated in different scenario within Danish
ports.
4.5.5. SCR System Installation
There are more than 600 SCR ship installations since 1987 according to a SCR installation list
submitted to IMO by corresponding groups. A statistic graph presenting the total engine
power of SCR installation over the past two decades and a graph showing the number of
installation are shown as below in Figure 27 and Figure 28.
Figure 27. Total engine power of SCR installation
Figure 28. Number of SCR installation
64 Shih-Tung Shu
When SCR technology was first introduced into the shipping industry, only small engines
with engine power below 1MW were installed. In 1998, larger engines were installed with
SCR systems and the combination between main engine, auxiliary engine and boiler has
increased, but mostly in the range of 10MW to 20MW.
With the upcoming stringent NOx limits, it can be foreseen that there will be an increasing
demand for SCR technology since it is a mature and well developed technology with many
successful marine applications.

5. INSTALLATION IMPACTS
Scrubber technology is one of the proven exhaust gas treatment techniques, but there is
insufficient empirical data from marine applications. Impacts of scrubber system are typically
ship owner’s doubts regarding technical and economical aspects, while local authorities and
concern more about environmental influences. Technical and environmental impacts are
introduced in this chapter, while the economical impacts will be discussed in Chapter 6.
5.1. Technical Impacts
5.1.1. Space
Not only the bulky scrubber unit but also all the other major components need space to fit in
the already optimized space onboard in retrofitting cases. The capacity required for the
scrubber unit depends on the engine size, the number of exhaust inlet, engineering design and
scrubber type.
Due to the characteristic of scrubbing process, most of the scrubber units are installed near the
chimney. In some retrofitting scrubber installations, the chimney casing has to be removed
either for installation opening or there is simply not enough space and a new casing design is
needed. For ships like cruise ship, the aesthetic appearance also has to be considered since a
bulky chimney casing might not look too good comparing to the sleek ship.
Other than the huge scrubber units, other treatment systems also take up space onboard. For
wet scrubber systems, washwater treatment systems, freshwater tank or caustic soda tank,
sludge tank, pumps and dosing control panel all need space to settle; while for dry scrubber
systems, the place for the fresh and used granulates has to be considered. Although in
comparison to the tricky task for scrubber unit, the space for other units is not so hard to find
onboard the ship.
For scheme B scrubber systems, onboard monitoring system is required to ensure the
regulation compliance, which consists of very sensitive probes and vulnerable electrical
control and analysis equipment. Some harsh environments with consistently vibrating
66 Shih-Tung Shu
condition might not be perfect for monitoring systems and thus need more attentions
regarding maintenance and reliability check.
Access for maintenance is often neglected in facing such tight space plan. In some extreme
cases, some crews were injured during the maintenance or replacement of the equipment due
to the lack of access space consideration. This problem could be hidden until reported and
might need medications, thus becomes one of the hidden costs for scrubber installation.
It is much easier for new-built ships with scrubbers than retrofitting. However, it is
challenging and important in both cases for engineers to take all the requirements into
consideration.
5.1.2. Weight
Weight of scrubber system consists of the dry weight of all equipments, modification for extra
piping, casing and structural reinforcement and water or consumables used. Depending on the
scrubber type and equipments provided by different vendors, a scrubber system can weigh up
to hundreds tons. It will for sure take up the weight capacity of the ship, and sometimes
reducing ship stability.
Installing scrubber systems leads inevitably to cargo loss. It will have different economical
impacts on various ship types, depending on the percentage of cargo loss to the whole cargo
capacity. In case of cargo or container ships’ installation, the cargo loss can be calculated in
turns of money loss.
For stability reason, the operational weight of all scrubber systems and the location of
installation should be carefully considered. It may not be available for retrofitting all the ships.
5.1.3. Operation Mode
Scrubber systems need to be switched on and off when traveling between ECAs and non-
ECAs. Either the scrubber unit can be operated in dry mode, without the scrubbing process, or
the exhaust bypass is required, which can also provide alternatives in the case of scrubber
system failure.

In the scenario of scrubber system failure, ship should continue sailing by alternative means
and stay complied in accordance with the regulations, for instance switching to ultra-low
sulphur fuel or marine gas oil. Redundancy of compliance alternative should be considered
onboard even with scrubber systems installed. However, how much compliant fuel should be
stored to be regarded as sufficient in the case of main engine scrubber system’s failure? Do
the engines have the ability to use the alternative means directly? These challenges should
also to be considered in the scrubber system design stage.
The likelihood of scrubber system failure depends on the reliability of the system components
and the redundancy available in the engineering design. For example, in the event of a single
pumping unit failing for wet scrubber system, redundant pumping unit can be switched on
immediately to avoid the overall system failure. Other areas where redundancy can be
constructed include the exhaust gas and washwater monitoring systems.
For both wet and dry scrubber systems, the exhaust gas remaining in the pipes might cause
corrosive problems if the system is off for days. It is recommended to have fans installed and
all the exhaust gas should be pumped out while the ship is off-hired.
5.1.4. Chemical Usage
Chemical usage onboard is related to two crucial factors, namely the amount of chemical
consumable needed and the safety for chemicals. The amount of consumables will play an
important role in scrubbing efficiency and the weight and space taken up for storage, which
are ship- and machined-related; while the safety for chemical usage should be addressed for
the crew onboard.
Except for open loop seawater scrubber system (or hybrid runs in open loop), either sodium
hydroxide or calcium hydroxide are needed to take down the sulphur from exhaust gas.
Depending on the chemical bunkering interval, the rough amount of consumables needed for
one voyage can be calculated according to the consummation rate. Redundant consumables
should also be added to avoid delay of consumable refilling.
68 Shih-Tung Shu
Availabilities of chemical consumables in ports should be confirmed. In case of route

changing with short notice, it may not be possible for the chemical bunkering which will lead
to schedule delay with scrubber system not being able to operate.
The quality of chemical source is as important as ship fuel. Without the quality control of the
chemical consumables, it might cause unpredictable shut-down or non-compliance situation.
Appropriate protection for chemical should be installed near the storage tank. For examples,
sodium hydroxide in a 50% solution is corrosive to the skin and may cause severe burns, even
with short exposure. Protective goggles or clothing and eye wash shower station should be
considered. Besides, solutions of mists of sodium hydroxide may also cause damages to the
eyes, resulting in vision impairment or even blindness. General or local ventilation can be
provided to control the airborne levels below the exposure limits.
Crew training for handling consumables as well as solid waste onboard should be given, or at
least the knowledge should be passed down among crew members. Solid wastes from the wet
system consist of concentration of heavy metals. It should be properly handled by the port
facility and should not be incinerated onboard.
5.1.5. Exhaust Gas Handling
Exhaust gas treatment technologies increase intrinsically the exhaust backpressure for engines.
Engines can normally permit a certain range of backpressure without generating problems,
such as accelerated wear, reduced maintenance internals, reduced power and increased fuel
consumption. If the backpressure increases to a level outside of tolerable range, it can be
reduced by installing an induced draft fan.
When installing scrubber systems, main engine, auxiliary engines and sometimes large boiler
need to be considered as the sources of exhaust gas. In the case of single inlet system, at least
two scrubber units have to be introduced. Some vendors propose the integration scrubber
systems (multi inlet system), that it claims to have the same removal efficiency while greatly
reduce the footprint of the systems by combining two or more exhaust gas inlets into one
scrubber unit. The cost of multi inlet scrubber system might also be lower than the single inlet

scrubber system with respect to the same vessel. The schematic drawing of single and multi-
inlet scrubber system can be shown as in Figure 29.
Figure 29. Single and multi-inlet scrubber system
However, some technical and operational issues should be taken in to good consideration
when using multi inlet scrubber system. Marine engines do not operate normally at constant
load and therefore the combination of exhaust gas volume will also change significantly. It is
important how the exhaust gas is mixed from various sources before entering one single
scrubber unit. Intertanko’s report (2012) indicated that by using one scrubber for all engines
requires a very large scrubber unit to ensure the backpressure won’t exceed the tolerable
operation range. Additionally, it may require a redundancy system if the integrated scrubber
fails.
Table 8. Comparison of multiple separate and multi-inlet scrubber system

CapEx OpEx Weight Space System Reliability
Multiple Separate Scrubbers Higher Same Heavier Larger Higher
Multi-inlet Scrubber Lower Same Lighter Smaller Lower
For ships categorized in NOx Tier III, not only scrubber systems but also NOx abatement
technologies should be considered for installation. When Selective Catalytic Reaction (SCR)
device, considered to be the most efficient secondary method available, is installed with
scrubber systems, the compatibility needs to be double-checked.
70 Shih-Tung Shu
There are two crucial factors for SCR, namely the working temperature and the sulphur
contents limit for catalytic block poisoning. In order to prevent oxidation of sulphur dioxide
with reduction catalyst materials, fuel with sulphur content of less than 1.00% should be used.
When the exhaust gas is first introduced to SCR before scrubber system, without scrubbing
down the sulphur from HFO, clogging of the catalyst block is foreseeable. In the case of
installing downstream of the scrubber system, for dry scrubber system it does not decrease the
exhaust gas temperature and it is thus compatible for installing SCR directly after; while the
exhaust gas temperature is significantly reduced, and a re-heater is required to bring the
temperature back for efficient NOx removal. The relation of abatement technology
compatibility can be shown in Figure 30.
Figure 30. Abatement technology compatability
5.1.6. Noise Attenuation
In some cases silencer will be replaced by scrubber units since it has most of time the good
location and space on the way out to the chimney. Most of vendors claim their scrubber units
can work as silencer, but without indicating whether they can cover up what silencer used to
do or not. For better and comfortable environment onboard not only for crews but also for
passengers, it should be also carefully considered in both new-built and retrofitting design
stage.

5.1.7. Crew Training
There are various equipments onboard which should be taken good care of by the crews.
Without knowing how the exhaust gas treatment technologies work, any type of EGT system
would be another black box. Therefore, in the time of EGT system trouble shooting, most of
engineers would rather choose to turn it off than fixing the problem, since ships can still
operate without cleaning the exhaust gas. It is suggested to build up the basic concept of how
EGT systems work for crews.
72 Shih-Tung Shu
5.2. Environmental Impact
5.2.1. Washwater Discharge Criteria
The IMO Exhaust Gas cleaning System Guidelines regulates the washwater discharge from
wet scrubber system. PH value as a measure of acidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) as a measure of harmful oil components and turbidity as a measure of particulate
content are the three criteria needed to be monitored continuously for comparisons with the
quality of the receiving water.
Typical washwater instrumentation consists of three checking point, namely at the washwater
inlet, after washwater treatment plant and before pH correction and at the point after pH
correction before discharge back into the sea. When the seawater first enters into the pumping
system, pH, PAH, turbidity and salinity values will be measured as the reference.
The pH value of seawater is normally around 8 to 8.4. In some regions such as Baltic Sea,
there is relatively low alkalinity, which has lower efficiency for sulphur removal. There are
still debates among the use of open loop scrubber systems, which discharge the treated
washwater back into the ocean. Some claim that it should not take the sulphur content back
directly into the environment; while some others claim that sulphur does already exist in the
environment in various forms.
In European council directive 1999/32/EC amendment as regards the sulphur content of

marine fuels, it is mentioned that “…A general cap does not allow the use of marine fuels
with a sulphur content of more than 3.5 % by mass within member states territory, with the
exception of fuels used by vessels with alternative exhaust gas treatment systems, the so-
called scrubbers, operating in closed mode.” It might indicate that only close loop scrubber
systems can be used for wet scrubber system.
5.2.2. Sludge Disposal
Wet scrubber systems generate sludge in a rate of approximately 0.1 to 0.4 kg/MWh. The
composition of the sludge is mainly oil hydrocarbons, ash and metals. The waste

classification still remains unknown since there are not so many scrubber installations and not
enough samples for the data base. Many vendors believe that the wet scrubber generated
sludge can be treated as other engine generated oil sludge, but cannot be incinerated onboard.
However, a recently investigation points out the concern for scrubber generated sludge and its
disposal.
In 2012, Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Kjølholt J. et al, 2012) compared the
characteristics of scrubber sludge from literature reviews and practical investigation of an
existing wet scrubber system to find out possible impacts of scrubber water discharges on the
marine environment. It indicates that the sludge generated in circulation mode contained high
levels of sulphur, petroleum hydrocarbons (THC) and vanadium, nickel and cooper. Due to
the high concentration of nickel, vanadium and THC the sludge should be classified as
hazardous waste and must be treated and disposed at port facility if available or corresponding
waste treatment facilities.
Table 9. Close loop wet scrubber sludge sampling [Kjølholt J. et al, 2012]
Chemical substance Limit value (mg/kg) Sludge waste (mg/kg)
Nickel (Ni) 1000 5400
Vanadium (V) 10,000 12,000
Total petroleum hydrocarbons (THC) 1000 111,000
The sludge disposal cost was estimated that transfer of 2 m3 liquid waste from the port to the
chemical treatment company needs 2 to 3 hours and costs 1000 DKK per hour (~134€/hour)
for transportation in Port Copenhagen (Kjølholt J. et al, 2012). With the assumption that a 10
MW scrubber operates 270 days per year with the sludge generation rate of 0.25 kg/MWh -
%S, total 9 tons of sludge waste treatment will be created and cost 11,515€ per year for
proper disposal.
5.2.3. Scrubber End-of-life
It is far too early to foresee the end-of-life for the novel scrubber technologies, but ship
owners should be aware of any possible impacts. Hong Kong International Convention
(HKIC) will come into force in the future regarding the ship recycling issue. Scrubber
systems, most of time with tailor-made design, will be part of the ship and the equipments
74 Shih-Tung Shu
from the systems will not be easily re-sold unlike the other more common equipments such as
engines.
The end-of-life expenditures normally include disposal inspections, pre-cleaning, disposal and
demolition cost. Typically the life-span of scrubber system can be estimated to be longer or at
least equivalent to the life-span of the ship itself. Therefore, the most possible case is that the
ship is decommissioned with the scrubber system instead of decommissioning only the
scrubber system while the ship continues to stay in operation. The cost of recycling the
scrubber equipment is thus interrelated with the practice and regulation of ship recycling.
The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling
of Ships was adopted in May 2009 and it may enter into force 24 month after the entry into
forces conditions are met. Once HKIC enters into force, it will regulate ship recycling issues
such as the reselling of ship scrapping material that may contain environmentally hazardous
substances including asbestos, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, ozone-depleting substances and
so on.
Before the ship is sent for recycling, it will be requested to carry out an investigation of any
hazardous materials that are listed in the HKIC Inventory of Hazardous Materials. Since the
scrubber system installed onboard is part of the ship, if any material used for scrubber system
containing these hazardous substances mentioned above exists, it must be taken good care of
and the high pre-cleaning and demolition costs can be expected.
Most scrubber vendors are aware of HKIC Inventory of Hazardous Materials which has not
come into force yet and claim that none of the hazardous material is used throughout the
scrubber system’s lifetime. In this case, ship owners will have greater responsibility to know
what kind of materials is used not only for the scrubber system, but also for all the equipments
onboard.

6. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Four different vessel / route combinations are picked to demonstrate the impacts of engine
size, time travelled inside ECA-SOx, and continuous operation days inside ECA-SOx on the
life-cycle cost analysis.
To focus on the impacts, the assumption is made that only one single-inlet exhaust gas
scrubber system is installed to clean the exhaust stream from one main propulsion engine. The
cases of the multi-inlet scrubber system are not discussed in the analysis.
A transpacific 4,000 TEU containership with 60,000 DWT travelling between Europe and
North America is equipped with the scrubber system. The propulsion engine power is 36 MW
and it uses 80% average engine load to maintain speed. Since most of the time it travels
across the Pacific Ocean, total time spent inside the ECA-SOx is estimated at 30% per year,
while the continuous operation days inside the ECA-SOx are assumed to be 3 days.
A 7,500 DWT passenger ship with 2,500 passenger capacity travelling in EU waters is
equipped with the scrubber system. The propulsion engine power is 16 MW and it uses 90%
average engine load to maintain speed. Total time spent inside the ECA-SOx is estimated at
70% per year since the ship would divert part of its course outside of the ECA-SOx. The
continuous operation days inside the ECA-SOx are assumed to be 2 days.
A 1,500 TEU Ro-pax with 400 passengers travelling between United Kingdom and Norway
plans to install a scrubber system. The propulsion engine power is 12 MW and it uses 90%
average engine load to maintain speed. The ship spends all the time inside ECA-SOx and it
operates continuously for only one day.
A 37,000 DWT transpacific tanker travelling between Europe and North America is installed
with the scrubber system. The propulsion engine power is 10 MW and it uses 80% average
engine load to maintain speed. Total time spent inside the ECA-SOx is estimated at 50% per
year since the ship cruises across the Pacific Ocean and spends longer time inside North
American ECA-SOx. The continuous operation days inside the ECA-SOx are assumed to be 5
days.
76 Shih-Tung Shu
6.1. Baseline Scenario
The baseline of the life-cycle cost analysis is defined as no abatement technology scenario
that only MGO is used for propulsion engine. The life-cycle cost equals to the total MGO
consumption over 15 years of analysis.
A baseline of life-cycle cost is provided as in Table 10 for four different ship type and
operation profile combinations. It is assumed that all ships have the same days of operation
per year, the same engine fuel consumption rate, and the same scrubber life-span.
The cost of switching fuel oils without installing any abatement technology to meet the IMO
SOx limits can be calculated by the price spread between the HFO and MGO and the total
fuel consumption per year.
Table 10. Baseline of four vessel types

Container Passenger Ro-Rax Tanker
Engine Power 36 MW 16 MW 12 MW 10 MW
DWT 60,000 7,500 27,000 37,000
Cargo capacity 4000 TEU - 1500 TEU -
Passengers capacity - 2500 400 -
Average Engine Load 80% MCR 90% MCR 90% MCR 80% MCR
ECA-SOx time 30% 70% 100% 50%
Continues Operation Days in ECA-SOx 3 days 2 days 1 day 5 days
Days of Operation (per year) 270 days 270 days 270 days 270 days
Life-span 15 years 15 years 15 years 15 years
Date of Installation 2014 2014 2014 2014
Engine Fuel Consumption 173g/kW-hr 173g/kW-hr 173g/kW-hr 173g/kW-hr
Total Fuel Used (per year) 9686 tons 11300 tons 12107 tons 4484 tons
Cost of HFO (per metric ton) 591 USD 591 USD 591 USD 591 USD
Cost of MGO(per metric ton) 925 USD 925 USD 925 USD 925 USD
Price Spread (MGO-HFO) 334 USD 334 USD 334 USD 334 USD
Exchange rate 1.3 USD/€ 1.3 USD/€ 1.3 USD/€ 1.3 USD/€
Cost of Baseline (per year) 2,488,557 € 2,903,231 € 3,110,568 € 1,152,043 €

6.2. LCCA Framework
6.2.1. Capital Expenditures
For each vessel’s capital expenditures, it can be divided into five subcategories, namely
equipment acquisition cost, engineering design cost, installation / commissioning cost,
documentation / training cost and installation off-hire cost.
The cost data of scrubber equipment are not as transparent as other abatement technologies
such as SCR since scrubber technologies are still evolving rapidly in many different ways and
there is still fierce competition between manufacturers. Furthermore, each scrubber
installation is a tailor-made design for every individual ship and under different engineering
designs depending on ship owner’s requests.
It is relatively difficult to generate any accurate and absolute estimation. However based on
scrubber vendors’ press releases, brochures, public reports and studies, it is still possible to
have a general idea of the capital expenses for scrubber systems in the past few years. The
cost data from various sources are collected with respect to engine size despite of the scrubber
type as shown in the graph below. (Alvestad T. R. in 2011, Bosch P. et al. in 2009, Grebot B.
et al. in 2010, Leigh-Jones C. in 2009, Nikopoulou Z. in 2008, Reynolds, K. in 2012, Ritchie
A. et al. in 2005 and Stavrakaki A. Et al. in 2009)
Figure 31. Cost information of scrubber system
78 Shih-Tung Shu
The linear cost estimation (in red) results from the cost estimation in terms of average cost per
kW from several study reports. Some of the cost data are merely found in a news article or
press release without any specific statement regarding scrubber system types or which of the
cost items such as equipment acquisition cost, engineering design cost, installation cost,
documentation/training cost or installation off-hire cost is included. Nevertheless, a rough
range of scrubber costs varying from 1 million USD to 4 millions USD can be found. In the
following table, cost estimations can be shown for the scrubber equipment cost only.
Table 11. Scrubber equipment cost

(USD)* SWS FWS HS Dry
36 MW 3,100,000 3,850,000 3,600,000 3,770,000
16 MW 2,900,000 3,600,000 3,120,000 2,780,000
12 MW 2,000,000 2,500,000 2,220,000 2,615,000
10 MW 1,800,000 2,150,000 1,920,000 1,870,000
3 MW 1,300,000 1,850,000 1,560,000 1,250,000
1 MW 1,000,000 1,750,000 1,260,000 920,000
*Equipment cost only, without installation, engineering design and documentation
The table is listed base on Glosten’s estimation in 2011 for wet scrubber system (FWS, SWS
and HS), while the cost of dry scrubber system is provided by the vendor with the author’s
normalised estimation for specific engine power. Actual prices for scrubber systems must be
obtained directly from the scrubber manufacturers for specific design requirements.
Costs other than equipment cost are estimated based on percentage of the equipment cost: 9%
for engineering design cost, 80% for installation/commissioning cost and 2% for
documentation/training cost. The installation off-hire cost can be either estimated as 1% of the
equipment cost or calculated from the installation duration and rate off-hire loss. The total
capital expenditures and cost items can be listed in Table 12.
Table 12. Capital expenditures and cost items

Capital Expenditure Total = 1.92 A or 1.91A +B
Equipment Equipment capital cost [€] =A
Installation/Commissioning Equipment capital cost [€]* Estimation in percentage [%] = 0.8 A
Engineering Design Equipment capital cost [€]* Estimation in percentage [%] = 0.09 A
Documentation Equipment capital cost [€]* Estimation in percentage [%] = 0.02 A
Installation Off-hire Loss Loss of off-hire [€/day]* Installation time [days] = 0.01 A or B

Without sufficient exact cost data from the actual installation, there is uncertainty of the cost
percentage estimated. The total capital expenditures are in rough order of magnitude and
should be used only in this study.
6.2.2. Operational and Maintenance Expenditures
Operational and maintenance expenditures can be divided in the following subcategories as

shown in the table. The total O&M expenditures are different from each scrubber system and
can be added up based on various cost items.
Table 13. O&M expenditures and cost items

O&M Expenditures Total = SWS= C+D+E+F+G
FWS= C+D+E+F+G+H+I
HS= C+D+E+F+G+H+I
Dry= C+D+E+F+J+K+L
Scrubber power cost Total fuel consumption per annum [MT] =C
* Power consumption [% of MCR]
* HFO fuel price [455 €/MT]
Labour cost Staff need for scrubber per annum (engineer level) [0.2 staff] =D
* Labour cost (engineer level) [10,000 €/year]
Maintenance Equipment capital cost [€] =E

* Maintenance cost estimation in percentage [%]
Loss in freight Minimum capacity loss [TEU] =F

* Travel schedule [voyages]
* Freight rate [€/voyage]
Sludge disposal cost Total sludge generation per annum [MT] =G

* Sludge disposal price [200 €/MT]
NaOH cost Total NaOH consumption per annum [MT] =H

* NaOH price [350 €/MT]
Fresh water cost Total fresh water consumption per annum [MT] =I
* Fresh water price [2 € /MT]
Granulate cost Total Ca(OH)2 granulate consumption per annum [MT] =J

* Granulate price [230 €/MT]
Fresh granulate transport Total fresh Ca(OH)2 granulate consumption per annum [MT] =K
* Fresh handling price [75 €/MT]
Used granulate transport Total used Ca(OH)2 granulate generation per annum [MT] =L
* Disposal handling price [50 €/MT]
80 Shih-Tung Shu
The fuel oil price is listed in bunkerworld.com IFO380 at 591 USD per metric ton and MGO
925 USD per metric ton in Rotterdam in January 2013. The price difference between HFO
and MGO is 334 USD per metric ton. The rate of current exchange rate is assumed to be: 1
Euro= 1.3 USD.
The operating staff is assumed to be 20% of the potion at an engineer level with an annual
salary of 10,000 € for labour cost since most of vendors claim that very little attention is
needed for the scrubber operation.
Caustic soda prices are volatile and estimated to increase caused by demands from different
industries. Based on the market price in October 2012, an average price of 350 € per metric
ton is assumed for 50% NaOH solution including transportation.
The dry system requires calcium hydroxide in the form of spherical granulate as an operating
resource. The price of spherical granulate is estimated to be 230 € per metric ton provided by
the vendor. The handling costs for fresh and used granulates transportation are estimated at 75
and 50 € per metric ton, respectively.
The freshwater replenishment at ports is simply assumed to be 2 € per metric ton despite of
the fact that there are different tariff at different ports.
Based on Danish EPA’s study, it is suggested that the sludge generated from a wet scrubber
system should be treated as hazardous wastes and transported to the corresponding facilities
by liquid bulk waste truck. A rate of 200 € per metric ton is assumed for sludge disposal. The
assumption might be exaggerated under the condition that it takes at least 2 to 3 hours to
transport the sludge from the port to the waste treatment centre. If any further studies can
prove that the sludge generated is merely normal oil sludge and can be disposed of at port
directly, the price can be much cheaper.
To calculate the total consumption of fuel oils, chemical consumables, freshwater and sludge
generation, more parameters have to be defined and it provides the relationship between
technical parameters introduced in Chapter 4 and total operating hours, as shown in Table 14

and Table 15 for wet and dry scrubber systems, respectively. The alphabets listed in the right
row denote the related cost item as listed in Table 13.
For both wet and dry scrubber systems, the minimum capacity loss in terms of TEU is
estimated only by the total weight loss from the installation since it is the only absolute
measurement despite of the installation positions. Evert 20 metric ton increased by scrubber
system installation is regarded as one TEU freight loss and it is included as one of the cost
items for O&M expenditure to reflect the economical penalty of cargo loss under the
assumptions that there are at least 20 voyages each year and the freight rate of 300 €/TEU is
used.
6.2.3. End-of-life Expenditures
Under the circumstances that the scrubber system is made of none-hazardous materials, it is
estimated that the cost of pre-cleaning and demolition will be offset by the reselling of
scrubber scrapping materials. Thus, the expenditures for end-of-life scenario are assumed to
be zero in this study.
6.2.4. Fuel Escalation and Inflation
This analysis assumes that the fuel price escalates at the rate of 8% annually and uses the rate
of 3% for labour cost inflation. Any cost related to fuel price is also expected to escalate at the
same rate such as the cost of chemical consumables, transportation and disposal.
82 Shih-Tung Shu
Table 14. Wet scrubber system parameters

Parameter Definition
Total ECA operation engine Days of operation per annum [days]* 24 [hours/day]
profile [hours] = * Average engine load per annum [%]
* Sailing in ECA [%]
Total fuel consumption per Engine size [kW] C
annum [MT] = * Fuel consumption [g/kW] / 10^6 [g/ MT]
* Total ECA operation engine profile [hours]
Total NaOH consumption Engine size [kW] / 10^3 [kW/MW] H

per annum [MT] = * HFO sulphur content [%]*100
* NaOH consumption rate [l/MWh-%S] / 10^3 [l/ m3]* 1.52
[MT/m3]
Total Fresh water Engine size [kW]/ 10^3 [kW/MW] I

consumption per annum * Fresh water consumption rate [m3/MWh]/ 1 [m3/MT]
[MT] = * Total ECA operation engine profile [hours]
Total sludge generation per Engine size [kW]/ 10^3 [kW/MW] G

annum [MT] = * Sludge generation rate [kg/MWh]/ 10^3 [kg/MT]
NaOH storage tank capacity Engine size [kW]/ 10^3[kW/MW]

needed [m3] = * Continuous operation days between bunkering [hours]
* HFO sulphur content [%]* 100
* NaOH consumption rate [l/MWh-%S]/ 10^3 (l/m3)
Fresh water storage tank Engine size [kW]/ 10^3[kW/MW]

capacity needed [m3] = * Continuous operation days between bunkering [hours]
* Fresh water consumption rate [m3/MWh]
Bleed-off holding tank Engine size [kW]/ 10^3[kW/MW]

capacity needed [m3] = * Continuous operation days between bunkering [hours]
* Bleed-off flow rate [m3/MWh]
Sludge tank capacity needed Engine size [kW]

[m3] = * Continuous operation days between bunkering [hours]
* Sludge generation rate [m3/MWh]
NaOH consumption rate When 3.5 %S used, NaOH consumption rate [litre/MWh] = 20
[litre/MWh-%S] = When 2.7 %S used, NaOH consumption rate [litre/MWh] = 16
When 1.5 %S used, NaOH consumption rate [litre/MWh] = 8.57
Average: NaOH consumption rate [litre/MWh-%S] = 5.714
Total weight loss [MT] = Equipments dry weight [MT]

+ NaOH storage tank capacity needed [m3]* 1.52 [MT/m3]
+ Fresh water storage tank capacity needed [m3]* 1.0 [MT/m3]
Total space needed [m3] = NaOH storage tank capacity needed [m3]
+ Fresh water storage tank capacity needed [m3]
+ Bleed off storage tank capacity needed [m3]
+ Sludge tank capacity needed [m3]
Minimum capacity loss Total weight loss [MT] / 20[MT/TEU]

[TEU] =

Table 15. Dry scrubber system parameters

Parameter Definition
Total ECA operation Days of operation per annum [days]* 24 [hours/day]
engine profile [hours] = * Average engine load per annum [%]
* Sailing in ECA [%]
Total fuel consumption per Engine size [kW] C

annum [MT] = * Fuel consumption [g/kW] / 10^6 [g/ MT]
Total fresh Ca(OH)2 Engine size [kW] / 10^3 [kW/MW] J

granulate consumption per * HFO sulphur content [%]*100
annum [MT] = * Fresh Ca(OH)2 consumption rate [kg/MWh-%S]/10^3 [kg/ MT]
Total used Ca(OH)2 Engine size [kW] / 10^3 [kW/MW] L

granulate generation per * HFO sulphur content [%]
annum [MT] = * Used Ca(OH)2 generation rate [kg/MWh-%S] / 10^3 [kg/ MT]
Fresh Ca(OH)2 granulate consumption rate = 7.1 [kg/MWh-%S] K

Used Ca(OH)2 granulate generation rate = 8.5 [kg/MWh-%S] L
Fresh Ca(OH)2 granulate Engine size [kW]/1000[kW/MW]

storage capacity needed * Continuous operation days between bunkering [hours]
[m3] = * HFO sulphur content [%]*100
* Fresh Ca(OH)2 granulate consumption rate [kg/MWh-%S]/
800[kg/m3]
Used Ca(OH)2 granulate Equals to Fresh Ca(OH)2 granulate storage capacity needed [m3]
storage capacity needed
[m3] =
Total weight loss [MT] = Equipments dry weight [MT]

+ Absorber wet weight [MT]
+ Fresh Ca(OH)2 granulate storage capacity needed [m3] *
800[kg/m3]
Total space needed [m3] = Absorber capacity needed [m3] / 38.5 [m3/TEU]
+ Fresh Ca(OH)2 storage capacity needed [m3] / 38.5 [m3/TEU]
+ Used Ca(OH)2 storage capacity needed [m3] / 38.5 [m3/TEU]
Minimum capacity loss Total weight loss [MT] / 20[MT/TEU]

[TEU] =
84 Shih-Tung Shu
6.3. Technologies Comparison
The life-cycle cost analyses for four vessel/route combinations use the same annual discount
rate of 10%. Net Present Cost (NPC) is calculated for each analysis which includes the life-
cycle cost over 15 years in terms of present money by introducing the discount rate and the
escalation rate.
The life-cycle cost of using MGO is used as baseline to compare with the life-cycle cost of
scrubber systems. The difference between the two can be regarded as the Net Present Value
(NPV) of each scrubber alternative.
Another key factor is the Return of Investment (ROI) which calculates the time needed for the
life-cycle cost of using MGO to offset the capital expenditures incurred in Year 0.

Table 16. LCCA results of vessel/route 1 - Containership

Containership SWS FWS HS Dry
Engine Size 36MW 36MW 36MW 36MW
Fuel consumption 173 g/kW 173 g/kW 173 g/kW 173 g/kW
Average engine load 80% 80% 80% 80%
Sailing in ECA 30% 30% 30% 30%
Days of operation 270 days/yr 270 days/yr 270 days/yr 270 days/yr
Continuous operation 3 days 3 days 3 days 3 days
Life cycle 15 years 15 years 15 years 15 years
Discount rate (per year) 10% 10% 10% 10%
HFO and MGO spread (euro€/MT) 257 € 257 € 257 € 257 €
Total Fuel Used 9,686 tons 9,686 tons 9,686 tons 9,686 tons
Capital Cost (euro€ - Year 0) 4,578,462 5,686,154 5,316,923 5,568,000
Equipment 2,384,615 2,961,538 2,769,231 2,900,000
Installation (80%) 1,907,692 2,369,231 2,215,385 2,320,000
Engineering Design (9%) 214,615 266,538 249,231 261,000
Document (2%) 47,692 59,231 55,385 58,000
Off-hire loss (1%) 23,846 29,615 27,692 29,000
1st Year O&M Cost (euro€ - Year one) 190,359 925,394 923,471 946,270
Weight loss (tons) 56 tons 653 tons 653 tons 456 tons
(% of total DWT) 0.09 % 1.09 % 1.09 % 0.76 %
Net present Cost (euro€ - Present) 6,561,271 16,757,553 16,365,187 16,890,543
MGO Life-cycle cost (euro€ - Present) 29,937,665 29,937,665 29,937,665 29,937,665
Net present value (euro€ - Present) 23,376,394 13,180,112 13,572,478 13,047,122
Return of Investment (year & month) 2yrs3m 4yrs1m 3yrs10m 4yrs1m
Figure 32. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 1 – Containership
86 Shih-Tung Shu
Table 17. LCCA results of vessel/route 2 - Passenger ship

Passenger ship SWS FWS HS Dry
Discount rate 10% 10% 10% 10%
Equipment 2,230,769 2,769,231 2,400,000 2,137,283

Installation (80%) 1,784,615 2,215,385 1,920,000 1,709,826
Document (2%) 44,615 55,385 48,000 42,746
Off-hire loss (1%) 22,308 27,692 24,000 21,373
1st Year O&M Cost (euro€ - Year one) 184,906 898,434 894,742 1,011,188
(% of total DWT) 0.39 % 2.75 % 2.75 % 3.71 %
Figure 33. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 2 – Passenger ship

Table 18. LCCA results of vessel/route 3 - Ro-Pax ship

Ro-Pax ship SWS FWS HS Dry
Sailing in ECA 100% 100% 100% 100%
Equipment 1,538,462 1,923,077 1,707,692 2,011,490

Installation (80%) 1,230,769 1,538,462 1,366,154 1,609,192
Document (2%) 30,769 38,462 34,154 40,230
Off-hire loss (1%) 15,385 19,231 17,077 20,115
1st Year O&M Cost (euro€ - Year one) 252,451 984,726 980,419 1,118,359
Weight loss (tons) 22 88 88 185
(% of total DWT) 0.08 % 0.33 % 0.33 % 0.69 %
Figure 34. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 3 - Ro-ro Ferry
88 Shih-Tung Shu
Table 19. LCCA results of vessel/route 4 - Tanker ship

Tanker ship SWS FWS HS Dry
Equipment 1,384,615 1,653,846 1,476,923 1,438,174
Installation (80%) 1,107,692 1,323,077 1,181,538 1,150,539
Document (2%) 27,692 33,077 29,538 28,763
Off-hire loss (1%) 13,846 16,538 14,769 14,382
1st Year O&M Cost (euro€ - Year one) 176,538 477,249 473,711 474,663
(% of total DWT) 0.05 % 0.80 % 0.80 % 0.48 %
Figure 35. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 4 - Tanker ship

As shown in Table 16 to Table 19 all the analysis results return the positive NPV and the ROI
time ranges from 1 year to 6 year. The dominant factor is the total fuel used inside ECA-SOx
which is highly interrelated with the ROI. The cost advantage of installation a scrubber
system also depends on the price spread between HFO and MGO. In this study, the current
price spread of 257€ per ton is large enough to ensure the foreseeable return of investment by
installing any of these scrubber technologies.
For Vessel 3: Ro-Pax ship, the shortest ROI time (1~2 years) for all the scrubber systems can
be found in comparison to the other vessel types, while Vessel 1: tanker ship has the longest
ROI time (3~5 years) among the four, since the results of ROI time are related to the total fuel
oil used.
FWS, HS and Dry scrubber systems have similar ROI time within one year as shown in
Figure 32 to Figure 35. The NPC between the scrubber systems is dominated by the
equipment cost and O&M cost over the study period.
Among all scrubber systems, the open loop SWS system has the lowest NPC and shortest
time needed for ROI since there’s no chemical consumable onboard to operate the scrubber
and the capital expenditure is often the lowest. However, other systems provide various
flexibilities or compatibility with for example a SCR system. Economical, technical and
ecological impacts must all be taken into consideration during the discussion of selecting
scrubber technologies in the decision making stage.
90 Shih-Tung Shu
6.4. Sensitivity Analyses
Sensitivity analysis provides possible scenarios for factors that are difficult for ship owners to
predict such as the fuel price, escalation rate and inflation rate, while the amount of fuels
consumed inside ECA, the operation days, the freight rate and other factors related to ship’s
operation are normally the well-known design requirements in ship owner’s mind.
To understand the impacts of each factor, an open-loop SWS system installed onboard Vessel
3: passenger ship as discussed in the previous section is chosen for all the sensitivity analyses.
6.4.1. Fuel Price Sensitivity
Predicting the future fuel prise is like looking through a crystal ball, many uncertain factors
exist and they are not visible only until they arrive. Instead of making any prediction, the fuel
price spread in a range from 100 USD to 600 USD is used to analyse the possible
combinations in the future.
By using the 16MW passenger ship with the open loop SWS system installed as example, the
ROI time is calculated based on the time spent inside ECA-SOx and the price difference
between HFO and MGO. The spread sheet is listed as in Table 20.
Table 20. Fuel price sensitivity

100 % 4yrs4ms 2yrs0ms 1yrs4ms 12ms 9ms 8ms
90 % 4yrs11ms 2yrs3ms 1yrs6ms 1yr1ms 10ms 9ms
80 % 5yrs7ms 2yrs7ms 1yrs8ms 1yr3ms 12ms 10ms
70 % 6yrs6ms 2yrs11ms 1yr11ms 1yr5ms 1yr1ms 11ms
60 % 7yrs8ms 3yrs5ms 2yrs3ms 1yr8ms 1yr4ms 1yr1m
50 % 9yrs6ms 4yrs2ms 2yrs8ms 1yr12ms 1yr7ms 1yr4ms
40 % 12yrs5ms 5yrs4ms 3yrs5ms 2yrs6ms 1yr12ms 1yr8ms
30 % never 7yrs5ms 4yrs8ms 3yrs5ms 2yrs8ms 2yrs2ms
20 % never 11yrs11ms 7yrs4ms 5yrs3ms 4yrs1ms 3yrs5ms
10 % never never never 11yrs8ms 8yrs11ms 7yrs3ms
100 USD 200 USD 300 USD 400 USD 500 USD 600 USD
Despite the changing fuel price spread, at least 40% time spent inside ECA-SOx (or total fuels
used over 5000 tons inside ECA-SOx) is suggested to consider installing the scrubber system.

The price spread between HFO and MGO is typically estimated to increase over time. The
larger the price spread, the shorter ROI time can be predicted for the scrubber system.
6.4.2. Fuel Escalation and Inflation Rate Sensitivity
Inflation has a major impact on the labour cost and any labour-related cost such as
transportation and disposal handling. However, the inflation rate and the fuel escalation rate
are normally interrelated. The net outcome of the fuel escalation and inflation rate may cancel
out each other and have a positive or negative effect on the life-cycle cost analysis.
Four combinations, classified as normal, worst, medium and best situations, subjected to the
same 16MW passenger ship are chosen to demonstrate the impact as shown in Table 21:
Table 21. Fuel escalation and inflation rate sensitivity

Passenger ship 16MW
NPV
Escalation rate Inflation rate
SWS FWS HS Dry
Normal 8% 3% 28,726,993 € 18,863,293 € 19,616,636 € 18,720,163 €

Best 11% 5% 36,492,699 € 23,921,527 € 24,684,133 € 23,495,512 €
Medium 5% 2% 23,861,776 € 14,855,806 € 15,601,823 € 14,936,376 €
Worst 2% 1% 19,435,254 € 11,678,139 € 12,418,346 € 11,936,160 €
6.4.3. Engineering Design and Installation Sensitivity
The costs of scrubber engineering design and installation are assumed to be subjected to the
equipment cost. The actual cost varies from cases to cases and it is difficult to generalise any
fixed percentage assumption. Therefore, four scenarios with different cost combinations are
listed in Table 22.
92 Shih-Tung Shu
Table 22. Engineering design and installation sensitivity

Normal Worst Medium Best
Passengership 16MW
SWS SWS SWS SWS
Capital Cost Total 4,283,077 € Total 4,796,154 € Total 3,747,692 € Total 3,256,923 €
Equipment 2,230,769 € 2,230,769 € 2,230,769 € 2,230,769 €
Installation 80% 1,784,615 € 100% 2,230,769 € 60% 1,338,462 € 40% 892,308 €
Engineering Design 9% 200,769 € 12% 267,692 € 5% 111,538 € 3% 66,923 €
Document 2% 44,615 € 2% 44,615 € 2% 44,615 € 2% 44,615 €
Off-hire loss 1% 22,308 € 1% 22,308 € 1% 22,308 € 1% 22,308 €
Net present Cost 5,483,672 € 5,996,749 € 4,948,287 € 4,457,518 €

MGO Life-cycle cost 34,927,276 € 34,927,276 € 34,927,276 € 34,927,276 €
Net present value 29,443,604 € 28,930,527 € 29,978,989 € 30,469,758 €
Return of Investment 1yr8ms 1yr11ms 1yr6ms 1yr3ms
6.4.4. Labour Cost Sensitivity
The sensitivity of labour cost is analysed by changing all parameters from the engineer annual
salary, operating staff needed and maintenance cost per year for the best and worst scenarios.
Table 23. Labour cost sensitivity

Normal Worst Medium Best
Passengership 16MW
SWS SWS SWS SWS
Engineer salary (€/year) 100,000 200,000 50,000 0
Staff needed (staff/year) 0.2 0.5 0.1 0
Maintenance cost (% of unit cost/year) 2% 4% 1% 0.5%
Net present Cost 5,483,672 € 7,005,394 € 5,376,180 € 5,170,334 €
MGO life cycle costing 34,927,276 € 34,927,275 € 34,927,276 € 34,927,276 €
Net present value 29,443,604 € 27,921,881 € 29,551,096 € 29,756,942 €
Return of Investment 1yrs8m 1yr9ms 1yrs8m 1yrs8m
6.4.5. Worst and Best Combination Sensitivity
By combining different sensitivity assumptions, the worst and best scenarios can be created
regarding engineering design, installation, escalation rate, inflation rate, labour cost related
cost and maintenance cost as listed in the table below.
Table 24. Worst and best combination sensitivity

Passengership
SWS SWS SWS SWS
16MW
Sensitivity Normal Worst Medium Best
Capital Cost Total 4,283,077 € Total 4,796,154 € Total 3,747,692 € Total 3,256,923 €
Equipment 2,230,769 € 2,230,769 € 2,230,769 € 2,230,769 €
Installation 80% 1,784,615 € 100% 2,230,769 € 60% 1,338,462 € 40% 892,308 €
Engineering
9% 200,769 € 12% 267,692 € 5% 111,538 € 3% 66,923 €
Design
Document 2% 44,615 € 2% 44,615 € 2% 44,615 € 2% 44,615 €
Off-hire loss 1% 22,308 € 1% 22,308 € 1% 22,308 € 1% 22,308 €
Escalation rate 8% 2% 5% 11%

Inflation rate 3% 1% 2% 5%
Engineer salary 100,000 €/year 200,000 €/year 50,000 €/year 0 €/year
Staff needed 0.2 staff/year 0.5 staff/year 0.1 staff/year 0 staff/year
Maintenance cost 2% unit cost 4% unit cost 1% unit cost 0.5% unit cost
Net present Cost 5,483,672 € 6,884,840 € 4,643,048 € 4,329,212 €
ROI 1yr8ms 2yrs1m 1yr6ms 1yr3ms
94 Shih-Tung Shu
6.5. Discussion
The decision of whether to install a scrubber system onboard or not depends on various
factors. One of the dominant factors, usually also what most ship owners concern about, is
whether or not the investment is worthwhile. A LCCA is conducted in this chapter to provide
details of investment items and to analyse the economical factors between different scrubber
technologies.
The results show that ROI time is very sensitive to the total fuels used per year and the price
spread between HFO and MGO. A reasonable ROI time can be expected when the ship
travels 40% of time inside ECA-SOx (or total fuels used over 5000 tons inside ECA-SOx)
when considering a scrubber system installation.
Rather than recommending any specific ship type for a scrubber installation, it is suggested to
first consider the operation profile of the ship. Each individual ship type will have a different
operation profile regarding the travelling region, vessel route and continuous operation days.
Logically for those ships which travel most of time inside ECA-SOx with shorter bunkering
interval such as ferry ships and passenger ships will potentially have a shorter ROI time, since
a larger consumption of compliant fuel is needed while redundant storages for chemical
consumable are less due to the frequent bunkering interval.
and the capital expenditure is often the lowest. Meanwhile, the results also reflect the fact that
even chemical consumables are required for some scrubber types, the costs of chemical
purchasing, handling and transportation can be covered by the price spread between HFO and
MGO in terms of saving. The results can always return the positive NPV under the fuel
assumption of the current bunkering price. Table 24 suggests that the NPC between best and
worst scenarios can have over 2.5 million Euros difference. However, the ROI time increases
merely within 11 months due to the interrelationship between the fuel escalation rate and
inflation rate and the effects brought by high inflation rate are often offset by the high fuel
escalation rate

7. CONCLUSION
Among various SOx, NOx and PM abatement technologies, for large marine diesel engines
that used by ocean-going vessel such as container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers and cruise
ships for propulsion power ranging in size from 2,500 to 70,000 kW, there are only scrubber,
EGR and SCR systems which can be applied to meet the global SOx and NOx emissions
limits. Since EGR system is still in its early stage in the research project “HERCULES” and
not ready for any commercial application yet, there is insufficient information for conducting
a LCCA between these two possible NOx abatement technologies for MARPOL Annex VI
NOx tier III limits and the life cycle costing of SCR systems is provided in the appendix. The
study focuses thereby only on the scrubber technology.
Ships using a scrubber technology have the advantage to continue using low-cost HFO while
meeting MARPOL Annex VI emission limits. However, higher back pressure, stability loss,
chemical consumables onboard, extra power consumption, cargo loss, environmental impacts
of sludge disposal and washwater discharge and other operational issues can be expected.
Typically a dry scrubber unit full with Ca(OH) 2 granulates is heavier than a scrubber unit in
the wet system, but both system may have the same weight during operation since a certain
amount of water is needed for wet scrubbing. To properly estimate total weight loss after
installation, the continuous operation days inside ECA-SOx must be taken into consideration
because sometimes the consumable or water storage can weigh much heavier than all the
equipments on board.
More than 20 marine scrubber installations were made including pilot projects, public testing
and commercial deliveries, and public reports for some of the ships are available online for
examination. Based on the testing results onboard MS Pride of Kent, MT Suula and Ferry
Fiacria Seaway, pollutants from the exhaust gas can be removed efficiently under different
engine loads. There is no concern of washwater discharge according to the sampling tests, but
the sludge disposal of the wet scrubber system requires more researches regarding the high
concentrations of THC, vanadium, nickel. In the scenario that the sludge should be regarded
as hazardous wastes, it can be handled properly as long as there are corresponding waste
96 Shih-Tung Shu
treatment facilities available at the ports or at least transportations to the waste treatment
facilities.
In this study, a life cycle cost analysis of scrubber systems was conducted with discussions of
the operational issues and installation impacts to evaluate the scrubber installation’s cost
throughout its life-cycle systematically. The objective of the analysis is to evaluate a number
of scrubber types for retrofitting or new-built ships and to determine which system can have
the shortest ROI time. The life-cycle costs of the alternative scrubbers are calculated and
compared.
Impacts of the space taken by a scrubber installation are difficult to measure explicitly, since
there are many possible engineering designs to fit the equipment inside the limited space.
However, the weight loss due to scrubber installation can somehow reflect the downsides of
installation. Minimum weight loss is quantified and estimated according to the scrubber unit
weight and extra chemical consumables onboard, but it excludes the other dry equipment’s
weights such as pumps, tanks, piping equipments and extra steel frame if required. The
weight loss takes part in the LCCA as a cost penalty by multiplying the freight rate and the
voyages per year.
For different ship types, it is clear that the weight loss caused by a scrubber installation will
have different levels of impact even there is no significant stability loss. In this study, the 16
MW of passenger ship has up to 3.7% of weight loss with respect to 7,500 DWT, while for
other ship types the weight losses are typically around or below 1% of the ship’s DWT.
The LCCA results show that ROI time is very sensitive to the total fuels used per year and the
price spread between HFO and MGO. To consider a scrubber system installation, a
reasonable ROI time can be expected when the ship travels minimum 40% of time inside
ECA-SOx, or total fuels used over 5000 tons inside ECA-SOx.
and the capital expenditure is often the lowest. Meanwhile, the results also reflect the fact that
even chemical consumables are required for some scrubber types, the costs of chemical
purchasing, handling and transportation can be covered by the price spread between HFO and

MGO in terms of saving. The results can always return the positive NPV under the fuel
assumption of the current bunkering price.
In conclusion, the MARPOL Annex VI regulations are mandatory and the global sulphur limit
cap is coming for sure either in 2020 or 2025. Time is running and the shipping industry must
take actions since there is no option of “non-compliant” and dissuasive penalties can be
expected. As one of the compliant alternatives, scrubber installations demand significant
investment and additional operational and maintenance expenditures are expected. However,
the LCCA results in this study show that it can have lower life cycle costing comparing to
switching over to MGO. Some challenges remain for marine scrubber systems regarding the
large engines’ applications, but it may be improved if more installations can be made in the
near future, just like every novel technology when they were first introduced onboard. Aid for
investment costs from the government will be an important incentive to accelerate the
development.
98 Shih-Tung Shu
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My gratitude is first extended to Lloyd’s Register Hamburg - Central and East European Area
Office, Germany for giving me the internship and all the supports. I would like to thank
especially my mentor Ms. Ramona Zettelmaier for her invaluable guidance, encouragement
and full support in every way. I also truly appreciate all the amazing people in Lloyd’s
Register and in other companies who have given me advices: Mr. Ulrich Foerster, Mr. Bjoern
Schoeneberger, Ms. Kim Tanneberger, Mr. John Bradshaw, Mr. Andy Wright, Mr. Jim Heath,
Mr. Timothy Wilson, Mr. Dimitris Argyros, Mr. Paul Herbert, Mr. Ralf Jürgens, Ms.
Penelope McDaniel, Mr. Michael Finch Pedersen, Mr. Henning Gramann, Mr. Mathias
Magnusson and Mr. Cecilia Ö sterman.
Secondly, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Philippe Rigo, Prof lionel Gentaz
and Prof. Robert Bronsart for their generous help during my study in Belgium, France and
Germany. It is an honour for me to one of the EMship students.
Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my beloved parents, my elder brother and all my family
in Taiwan for always supporting me. This master thesis is cordially devoted to all of them.
This thesis was developed in the frame of the European Master Course in “Integrated
Advanced Ship Design” named “EMSHIP” for “European Education in Advanced Ship
Design”, Ref.: 159652-1-2009-1-BE-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC.

REFERENCES
Alvestad T. R., 2011. Tightened emission regulations in Northern Europe - Cost analysis of
emission reducing alternatives in short sea shipping. Thesis (Master). Norwegian School of
Economics and Business Administration (NHH).
Ariana I. M. et al., 2006. Removal of Marine Diesel Particulate Matter by Electrostatic

Precipitator [online]. Maritime Science – Kobe University. Available from: http://www.isesp
.org/ICESP%20X%20PAPERS/PDFS/Paper%204A2.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2013].
Bescherer F., 2005. Established life cycle concepts in the business environment – introduction
and terminology [online]. Helsinki University of Technology. Available from:
http://tuta.aalto.fi/fi/kirjasto/kokoelmat/raportiti/report_bescherer_2005.pdf [Accessed 6
January 2013].
Bosch P. et al., 2009. Cost Benefit Analysis to Support the Impact Assessment accompanying
the revision of Directive 1999/32/EC on the Sulphur Content of certain Liquid Fuels [online].
AEA Technology. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/pdf/
CBA_of_S.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2013].
Bradley M. J., 2006. Staten Island Ferry Alice Austen Vessel SCR Demonstration Project.
M.J. Bradley & Associates [online]. Available from: http://www.mjbradley.com/about-
us/case-studies/staten-island-ferry-alice-austen-scr-demonstration-project [Accessed 6
January 2013].
Cooper D., 2002. Representative emission factors for use in “Quantification of emissions
from ships associated with ship movements between port in the European Community”
[online]. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. Available from:
http://projects.dnv.com/portenv/portal/Documents/Finalfinalreport31May.pdf [Accessed 6
January 2013].
Davis M. et al., 2005. Guidelines for Life Cycle Cost Analysis [online]. Stanford University.
Available from: http://0rz.tw/8tp4i [Accessed 6 January 2013].
Grebot B. et al., 2010. Study to Review Assessments Undertaken of the Revised MARPOL
Annex VI Regulations [online]. Entec UK limited. Available from:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/impact_assessment_-_revised_annex_vi_-_july_2009.pdf
[Accessed 6 January 2013].
Holland America Line and Hamworthy Krystallon., 2010. Seawater Scrubber Technology
Demonstration Project on the MS Zaandam [online] U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
Available from: http://cleantech.cnss.no/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2010-Holland-America-
Line-Sea-water-scrubber-technology-demonstration-project-on-the-MS-Zaandam.pdf
Hufnagl M. et al., 2005. Effects of Sea Water Scrubbing. [online] BP Marine. Available from:
http://www.dieselduck.net/machine/01%20prime%20movers/2005%20Effects%20of%20scru
bbers.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2013].
100 Shih-Tung Shu
IMO, 2009. Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides Sulphur
Oxides and Particulate Matter [online]. Available from: http://0rz.tw/Np7SL [Accessed 6
January 2013].
Intertanko, 2012. Emission Control Area (ECA) SOx Requirements – Guidance to

INTERTANKO Members for the Selection of Compliance Alternatives [online]. Intertanko.
Available from: http://0rz.tw/bMS6G [Accessed 6 January 2013].
ISO Standard. 2008. BS ISO 15686-5:2008 Building & constructed assets – Service life
planning – Pat 5: Life cycle costing.1st ed. London: British Standards Institute (BSI).
Jürgens R., Mikaelsen R. and Heslop J., 2011. State of the art and efficiency report.
TEFLES – Technologies and Scenarios for Low Emission Shipping [online]. Available from:
http://tefles.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/D2.1.-State-of-the-art-and-efficiency-report.pdf
Kalli J., RepkaS. and Karvonen T., 2010. Baltic NECA – economic impacts [online].
University of Turku. Available from: http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/shipping/
CMS_Baltic_NECA_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2013].
Kjølholt J. et al, 2012 Assessment of possible impacts of scrubber water discharges on the
marine environment [online]. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Available from:
http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2012/06/978-87-92903-30-3.pdf [Accessed 6 January
2013].
Klimt-Mollenbach C., Schack C., Eefsen T. and De Kat J., 2012. Vessel emission study:
Comparison of Various Abatement Technologies to Meet Emission Levels for ECA’s [online].
Green Ship of the Future. Available from: http://0rz.tw/Xd9OI [Accessed 6 January 2013].
Leigh-Jones C., 2009. The Case of Scrubbers. World Bunkering [online]. Available from:
http://www.worldbunkering.com/articles/environment/0014-the-case-for-scrubbers.html
Lloyd’s Register. 2011. Ship Recycling. London: Lloyd’s Register.
Lloyd’s Register. 2012. Understanding exhaust gas treatment systems – Guidance for ship
owners and operators. London: Lloyd’s Register.
Lövblad G. and Fridell E., 2006. Experiences from use of some techniques to reduce
emissions from ships [online]. PROFU. Available from: http://www.profu.se/emission.htm
Mearig T. and Coffee N., 1999. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Handbook. 1st ed. State of Alaska.
Reynolds, K. J, 2012. Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Selection Guide [online]. The Glosten
Associates. Available from: http://0rz.tw/rsTrA [Accessed 6 January 2013].
Ritchie A. et al., 2005. Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and
Market-based Instruments [online] Entec. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
air/pdf/task1_asign_report.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2013].

Robbins M. J., 2007. Report of SCR Project – M/V SOLANO. Fast Ferry Management.
Available from: http://goldengate.org/news/ferry/documents/NewFerry_070713-AttachB.pdf
Stavrakaki A. Et al., 2009. Impact Assessment for the revised Annex VI of MARPOL [online].
Entec. Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/impact_assessment_-_revised_annex_vi_-
_july_2009.pdf [Accessed 6 January 2013].
U.S. EPA. 2003. Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New
Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder. U.S. EPA.
Available from: http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/r03004.pdf [Accessed 6
January 2013].
United Kingdom Parliament, 2012. Sulphur emissions by ships Sixteenth Report of Session
2010–12, Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. United
Kingdom House of Commons Transport Committee. [online] Available from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/1561/1561.pdf
Wärtsilä., 2011. Wärtsilä Environmental Product Guide [online] Wärtsilä. Available from:
http://0rz.tw/iaGTo [Accessed 6 January 2013].
Woodward, D. G., 1997. Life cycle costing – theory, information acquisition and application.
International Journal of Project Management, 15(6), 335-344
102 Shih-Tung Shu
APPENDIX – SCR Life Cycle Costing
In the scenario that after 2016, ships sailing inside ECA-NOx will need a NOx abatement
system installed to meet MARPOL Annex VI regulations 13. Since SCR system is the only
one alternative available for the market, there is insufficient information to perform a LCCA.
Therefore, only the LCC of SCR system is provided here in the appendix.
This appendix contains the SCR cost data collection and the life cycle costing of SCR system.
There are more than 600 SCR ship installations since 1987 and the cost estimations have been
conducted by several studies as shown in Table 25.
Table 25. SCR cost estimation data collection

Source Engine Category/Range CapEx OpEx Urea Rate Life Span
1.BMT 35 – 75 $ 3-4$ - -
2.Non-road 90 $ - 7.5%BSFC -
3.Entec Small 64 € 8.6 € 15g/kWh 15 years
Medium 46 € 6.7 € 15g/kWh 15 years
Large 42 € 6.2 € 15g/kWh 15 years
4.AEA 949,000 € 297,000 € - 25 years
5.Turku Medium 4.5MW to 18MW 40-78 € 5-7.5 € 10%BSFC 15-25 years
Slow 8.5MW to 48MW 47-78 € 5-7.5 € 10%BSFC 15-25 years
Medium 4.5MW to 18MW 32-64 € - 7.5%BSFC -
Slow 8.5MW to 48MW 36-59 € - 7.5%BSFC -
- 2.55 € - 12.5 years
6.H+H 30-50 € 4-5€ - -
7.Solano 2.3MW $472,594 $100,000
*1.BMT Economic Legal Environmental and Practical Implications of A EU system to reduce
ship emissions of SO2 and NO2.
*2.Non-road Non-road diesel emission reduction study
*3.Entec Ship emissions, assignment, abatement and market-based instruments
*4.AEA Cost benefit analysis to support the impact assessment accompanying the revision of
directive 1999/32/EC on the Sulphur content of certain liquid fuels
*5.Turku Baltic NECA – economic impacts Study report by the University of Turku
*6.H+H EcoMarine Brochure
*6. Solano http://www.baylinkferry.com/ferry/solano-ferry-facts.php
The CapEx estimation can be made based on the SCR cost data collection with regard to six
different engine powers. Retrofitting the SCR system to a ship is assumed to cost 1.2 times

more than designing a new-build ship with the SCR system as listed in Table 26 and Figure
36.
Table 26. SCR CapEx estimation

Newbuild Retrofit
Engine power [MW] CapEx [€] CapEx [€]
1 64,000 76,800
3 192,000 230,400
10 460,000 552,000
12 552,000 662,400
16 672,000 806,400
36 1,512,000 1,814,400
Figure 36. SCR CapEx estimation
Operational cost is calculated based on the total urea used per year with the urea consumption
of 10% of Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC). The maintenance cost is assumed that after
every 1000 operation hours a periodical check and cleaning is needed. During the periodical
maintenance, 6 hours of engineering work are required and it costs 150 € per working hour.
To simplify the O&M assumption, the replacement of catalyst blocks is not included in the
O&M cost calculation, which means that the O&M might be underestimated.
Base on the CapEx and O&M cost estimation, the life cycle costing (LCC) of SCR system
can be forecasted over the designated life-span in line with the four vessel assumptions and
listed in Table 27.
104 Shih-Tung Shu
Table 27. LCC of SCR system installation

Container Passenger Ro-Rax Tanker
Engine Power 36 MW 16 MW 12 MW 10 MW
DWT 60,000 7,500 27,000 37,000
Cargo capacity 4000 TEU - 1500 TEU -
Passengers capacity - 2500 400 -
Average engine load 80% MCR 90% MCR 90% MCR 80% MCR
ECA-SOx time 30% 70% 100% 50%
Continues operation days in ECA 3 days 2 days 1 day 5 days
Days of operation (per year) 270 days 270 days 270 days 270 days
Life-span 15 years 15 years 15 years 15 years
Date of installation 2016 2016 2016 2016
Engine fuel consumption 173g/kW-hr 173g/kW-hr 173g/kW-hr 173g/kW-hr
Urea rate 10%SFC 10%SFC 10%SFC 10%SFC
Urea storage for continuous operation 45 tons 13 tons 5 tons 21 tons
Total urea consumption per year 969 tons 1130 tons 1211 tons 448 tons
Urea cost per ton 390 USD 390 USD 390 USD 390 USD
300 € 300 € 300 € 300 €
Periodical maintenance after every 1,000 hours 1,000 hours 1,000 hours 1,000 hours
Working hour needed for maintenance 6 hours 6 hours 6 hours 6 hours
Cost of maintenance 150 €/hr 150 €/hr 150 €/hr 150 €/hr
SCR weight (including catalyst blocks) 32 tons 14 tons 10 tons 9 tons
SCR service volume 175 m3 70 m3 50 m3 41 m3
Total weight loss 77 tons 27 tons 15 tons 30 tons
SCR Capital cost 1,814,400 € 806,400 € 662,400 € 552,000 €
O&M cost (Year 1) 292,374 € 343,502 € 369,517 € 363,217 €
O&M cost (Sum of 15 year) 3,517,370 € 4,132,471 € 4,445,436 € 4,369,644 €
Net Present Cost (NPC) 5,331,770 € 4,938,871 € 5,107,836 € 4,921,644 €
The capital cost is relatively lower than any of the scrubber systems. However the annual urea
consumption can cost up to 66% of the CapEx depending on the operational profile. The
weight and space taken by SCR systems are much less than the scrubber systems that it will
have very small impact to the stability and cargo loss.

Shu Shih-Tung (EMShip Thesis Feb 2013) A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Shu Shih-Tung (EMShip Thesis Feb 2013) A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine

presented in partial fulfillment

developed at University of Rostock, Rostock

Supervisor: Prof. Robert Bronsart, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

Reviewer: Dr. Tomasz Urbanski, West Pomeranian University of

Rostock, February 2013

LIST OF TABLES VIII

2. LIFE CYCLE COSTING 15

2.1. THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 16

3. EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OVERVIEW 21

3.1. SULFUR OXIDE (SOX) ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES 21

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

3.3.2. Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) 36

4. OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES 40

4.1. WET SCRUBBER SYSTEM 40

5.1. TECHNICAL IMPACTS 65

5.1.3. Operation Mode 66

6. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS 75

6.1. BASELINE SCENARIO 76

APPENDIX – SCR LIFE CYCLE COSTING 102

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

I have acknowledged all main sources of help.

Date: 13.01.2013 Signature

Figure 1. Regulation 14 SOx limits 3

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

Figure 32. NPC and ROI of vessel/route 1 – Containership 85

Table 1. U.S. EPA marine engine categories. 5

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

CapEx Capital Expenditures

O&M Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

1.2. Legislative Framework

1.2.1. MARPOL Annex VI

SOx emission control

Figure 1. Regulation 14 SOx limits

NOx emission control

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

Figure 2. Regulation 13 NOx limits

1.2.2. The United States Marine Emission Standards

Table 1. U.S. EPA marine engine categories.

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

1.3. Literature Reviews

1.3.1. Abatement Technologies Related

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

1.3.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Related

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

Klimt-Mollenbach C. et al. (2012) conducted an analysis based on an existing 38500 DWT

1.3.3. Installation of Abatement Technologies Related

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

Kjølholt J. et al (2012) contributed to an environmental project organized by Danish

1.3.4. Other Literature Reviews

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

2. LIFE CYCLE COSTING

Construction Operation Maintenance End-of-life

Figure 3. Categories of LCC

2.1. Theory and Applications

Master Thesis developed at University of Rostock, Germany

2.2. Principles and Purposes

2.2.3. Discount Rate

2.2.4. LCCA Procedure

Step 1. Establish clear objectives